1969-03-31

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, all members of this house, I know, share today with the government and people of the United States of America a sense of loss at the departure of an honoured and highly respected friend. The death of General Dwight D. Eisenhower permits us to pause to recall the many reasons why Canadians have long regarded General Eisenhower with such warmth.
His leadership as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the critical years of World War II acquired for General Eisenhower a lasting reputation in the hearts of the tens of thousands of Canadian servicemen who served under him. His distinguished tour as Commander of the NATO forces and his later occupancy of the highest elective office that his country could offer to him gave all of us numerous opportunities to view his many qualities of leadership and his traits of kindness, understanding and humanity which so endeared him to us all.
Canada long ago marked for all time its indebtedness to General Eisenhower by renaming a mountain in Banff National Park in his honour.
We pause today to think of this friend of Canada. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are present in Washington today to convey to the American people our sense of grief.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I concur in the remarks made by the Acting Prime Minister. He stated the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are in Washington. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was prime minister at the time the late General Eisenhower was president of his country and came to visit Canada, is also present. This, in addition to the thousands of messages from all ranks of life in all parts of this
country, indicates the respect, love and affection held for General Eisenhower.
I	limit my comments to remarking that while I was not during the course of the conflict of 1939-45, close to General Eisenhower, I was not too far away when he visited France. The respect and admiration held for him by all members of the armed forces bears testimony to his accomplishments. When called upon to make a momentous decision which no one else could make, he made it wisely. We hope that in the future, when such momentous decisions have to be made, there will be men of the calibre of General Eisenhower to make these decisions.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I join in the expression of sorrow to the family of the late General Eisenhower and to the people of the United States of America. General Eisenhower made his mark as a great military commander and as a president of his country, during which presidency he accomplished many things, not the least of which was the end of the war in Korea. He was obviously a sincere man with deep convictions about human welfare and we join all Canadians in mourning his passing.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in the name of my party, I wish to join with the other hon. members to deplore the death of that eminent personality who has left his mark on several years of this century.
He was above all a great soldier, of which the United States are very proud. During the war all the allies admired his achievements.
We mourn his death and we wish to express our feelings of deep sympathy to his family and to the American people.



PRIVILEGE


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in my absence from the house
March 31, 1969

Alleged Leak re New Airport Site on Friday a question of privilege was raised and I thought it would be useful at this time to give some of the background in respect to the alleged question of privilege.
The final decision on the site of the new Montreal International Airport was based on exhaustive technical studies made over a two and a half year period, consultation with other levels of government and other federal departments since August, 1968, and review of the many presentations from numerous local interest groups. In July, 1968, the decision was taken that a new international airport was required. The Government of Canada decided at that time that the government of the province of Quebec should be consulted in aiding in the final determination of the site for the new airport. This consultation took the form of two inter-governmental committees: From August, 1968, until December, 1968, a federal-provincial technical committee involving the federal government and four departments of the province of Quebec; and from December, 1968, until February, 1969, a federal, provincial and municipal committee involving my department and that of my colleague, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand), four departments of the province of Quebec and the Planning Department of the City of Montreal.
These committees discussed, reviewed and evaluated the possible sites that had been identified during the technical studies from December, 1966, to April 1968. These evaluations were made on the basis of the pertinent criteria which included the following:
1.	Air space safety-separation from other important airports, meteorological conditions, obstacles.
2.	Information in relation to urbanized areas.
3.	Accessibility to the users.
4.	Accessibility to Dorval.
5.	Transportation network required.
6.	Economic potential of airport at the respective sites.
7.	Promotion of the economic development of other regions.
8.	Cost benefit ratios.
During this process the government of Quebec made known its preferences to the federal government. The discussions with the province continued up until the last moment prior to the final decision by the cabinet. In fact a meeting with Dr. Lussier, Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec, for a final review of the several sites was

contemplated to be held as late as Thursday morning before the decision was taken. The decision of the federal government was forwarded to the province in a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Premier Bertrand just prior to the public announcement of the site.
It is obvious from the numerous levels of government involved and people within each level of government that this process, which is the only process which could lead to a fair and objective decision, resulted in many people being aware of the exact location of the more favourable sites. Every possible precaution was taken by all those involved that ensured that no one individual in any other level of government or agency knew the final cabinet decision before the decision was stated in the house.
In such a situation involving numerous levels of government with differing specific interests, and where such decision must be based on the technical criteria, it is unlikely that every participating party will be completely satisfied. The federal government recognized that if there were five sites that received intensive examination, four regions would be disappointed following the selection of one of the sites.
It was clearly important when the government announced the choice of the site, that there should be a complete factual briefing for the Canadian people and particularly for the residents of Quebec. Because our decision took into account very important technical considerations the cabinet decided on December 13, that certain advance preparation of material including video taping should be undertaken on a contingency basis.
Because the government does not have available complete facilities within the government service to carry out the necessary preparations, it was necessary to engage a private public relations firm, Agence Cana-dienne de Publicity Limitee, and to have them make arrangements with a local TV station for advance video recording and video taping. These private firms who collaborated with the government understood that no final decision had been taken by cabinet but that their participation in these advance contingency preparations was subject to the normal discretion and security which is involved in any professional contract. Moreover, as the house is probably aware, the Official Secrets Act has general application in cases of this kind.
March 31, 1969

Accordingly, the number of people in the publicity firm and at the television stations involved in these preparations was kept to an essential minimum. The advance video recordings were made on Saturday and Sunday, March 22 and 23, because studio time was available and because this was also the most convenient time for ministers to carry out the recordings.
While the government took an advance decision to make certain contingency preparations for the release of information, a firm decision on the site of the airport was not reached until the cabinet meeting on March 27. Prior to that meeting, there had been a request on the part of the Quebec government for further meetings, and the federal government indicated its willingness to enter into such discussions, noting that the matter was to be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Thursday, March 27. As it turned out it was not possible to arrange a mutually convenient time.
During the cabinet meeting on March 27 there was a special technical briefing regarding the relative merits of the various sites under consideration, and later in the morning a decision to select a site was taken. Following this the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) communicated with Prime Minister Bertrand to let him know that a decision had been taken and asking him to receive a special courier carrying a letter which set out in detail the consideration which had prompted the federal government's decision.
As members are aware, the government's decision was announced to the house shortly after its opening Thursday, March 27. As soon as this was done expropriation papers were filed in the province of Quebec. Once again, as a contingency measure, it had been essential to have these papers in the hands of our own local representatives so that notice of expropriation could be filed immediately after the government's decision had been announced.
In order to ensure that the government was prepared to act on an expropriation immediately upon the public announcement of the sites, expropriations were made ready well in advance of the final decision. Plans were prepared for the more favourable contenders for the final selection. This obviously represents enormous duplication of effort. However, this duplication of effort in advance of the decision led directly to time saved following the decision. We were prepared to act on the basis of a cabinet decision for any of the more favourable sites.
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site
Notwithstanding all precautions and secrecy one might still insist that a leak was possible during the final few days prior to the submission of the expropriation documents. I was advised however that even if a leak of this nature should occur, it would not affect the price of land. The price on expropriation is established on the basis of sales, over a period, of equivalent land in the area. It is not determined by isolated transactions shortly before the expropriation. Therefore a speculator could not make any profit from a last minute purchase. Accordingly, while on principle we took every reasonable precaution to preserve secrecy right to the last moment, no possibility of last minute speculative profits existed in any event.
In general I am satisfied that all possible security measures were taken and that in no sense has there been a breach of cabinet secrecy. While certain advance preparations were undertaken so that the public could be fully informed on a matter of such great importance and where technical considerations were paramount, those involved in these advance preparations were fully aware that no final decision would be taken by the cabinet until immediately prior to the government's announcement. Thus it was always possible that the advance material would not have been used had the government for one reason or another decided not to go ahead on the basis of the recommendations made to it which were based essentially on technical rather than political considerations.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In summary, Mr. Speaker:
1.	The consultative process, essential for an objective decision, by necessity involves great numbers of people from many levels of governments and federal government departments.
2.	All practicable secrecy and precaution was maintained during this process.
3.	The government had to prepare in advance its plans for action to follow the site announcement. The expropriation notices were in fact filed within minutes of my announcement in the house.
4.	Even if a leak had taken place in the final few days it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to realize speculative profits.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, as
March 31, 1969

Alleged Leak re New Airport Site minister responsible for regional development, I wish to point out that my department had a special part to play in the discussions and studies that have lead to the selection of the site of the future Montreal airport.
Since many people were interested in having this airport within their areas, it was important to inform them quickly of the various reasons why the government had taken a particular decision. That is why I agreed, at the request of the Department of Transport, to put on tape on Sunday night, March 23, two television and one radio broadcasts in French on the probable site of the airport.
I understood that the Department of Transport, whose responsibility it was to prepare the publicity concerning the announcement of this site, had done its preparatory work on the assumption that the airport would be located at St. Scholastique, west of St. Jerome. Actually, the cabinet's decision was only taken on Thursday, March 27.
Without being aware of the security measures the Department of Transport had taken, I understood that those advance recordings would be used only upon confirmation by the cabinet of the site located north west of Montreal. Otherwise, they were to be destroyed.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I was not and I am still not aware of having committed any indiscretion, since the cabinet had not yet reached a final decision as to the site.
As for other details pertaining to the incident, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has given them to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that the hon. member for Calgary North wishes to take part in this discussion. I am not sure whether this is the wish of the house, in view of the fact that the hon. member made a rather full presentation on Friday last. However, in a matter such as this the Chair likes the house to determine what procedure should be followed. If it is the unanimous wish of hon. members that the hon. member for Calgary North be allowed to make a further statement I would have no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would limit his comments at this1 time to the procedural aspects of the matter.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunities given to me by the house to answer some of the points which have been made today. I may say at the outset that since my question of privilege was raised on Friday last much new evidence has come to light. It seems to me that a very unusual defence has been raised. By referring to some of the authorities and to some of the evidence I believe I can still convince Your Honour that there is a prima facie case here. This does not mean of course that the ministers are guilty. It simply means that the facts would justify an investigation and inquiry. This was my submission on Friday, and it is my submission today. I hope hon. members will be permitted to express their views, and I wish to be allowed to express mine.
It is no defence to maintain, as I understood both ministers to do, that we are living in a tuned-in, turned-on world in the new telecommunication political arena and that the pretaping of information must be undertaken in order to communicate information to the public. This is the using of a well known Liberal, public relations, planned package. They say, of course, that it is done in order to communicate information to the public. This is their defence. I say it is no defence at all. That is why we have a press gallery. That is why in the press gallery there are members of the television, radio and newspaper media who carry the news as soon as it is delivered in this institution of parliament.
I am sure that all the radio and T.V. media will agree that the newspapers of Canada have an equal opportunity to disseminate news across the nation, although their methods and timing are different. The public of Canada are not so interested in seeing and hearing ministers speak; they are interested in having the news. With the greatest respect, this news can be disseminated by T.V. and radio without pre-taping news and without hiring fancy advisers to print the package in this form long before the decision is announced.
This question should have been answered earlier, and I am shocked that it was not. The excuse of the government is that they made a tape and set up this very expensive, colourful package because they had not yet made a decision, and if the money of the taxpayers' was to be set aside, the tape would be destroyed and the famous package would be burned. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Was- more than one tape made in reference to the various
March 31, 1969
sites the government had under consideration? Is it not a strange thing-and this is part of my prima facie case-that the only tape it would appear was made, and the only package that was disseminated to various places, was in relation to the decision that the cabinet finally arrived at. It is said it was arrived at, if you accept the Prime Minister's word, in the morning or the afternoon, depending whether you read Hansard or the newspapers.
The pre-taping and the using of the advertising agency in Montreal were solely to give publicity to the ministers and not to disseminate the message. Commentators can flash this over radio and television instantly, and the words need not flow from the mouths of ministers. A minister can have a silent picture, while the man trained and skilled in the field can give the message after an announcement such as that regarding the $645 million airport is made. This defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him. I suggested he might be allowed to make further comments, but only on the procedural point. It seems to me we are now debating the issue itself. It seems to me that we have to this point received arguments from the hon. member for Calgary North and arguments in opposition from ministers, and we should not go into the substance of the situation. In my view we should at this time direct ourselves to the consideration of purely procedural matters. I assure the hon. member for Calgary North and all hon. members that I intend to make my decision strictly upon procedural considerations and not in respect of allegations of fact on this question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; but the minister raised this defence. That was the first defence. I am merely answering it. I assume it was the minister's answer to the prima facie case. To say now that the Expropriation Act of 1896 is a protection in the tuned-in-turned-on age is, in my respectful submission, perfectly ridiculous. I know of no law that de facto freezes land values. Let us for a few moments consider-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear hon. members opposite saying "Order". I know you are most fair in these matters, Mr. Speaker; you are always fair. If his argument is admissible in the chamber, the argument with reference to expropriation must also be admissible.
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site
(2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I can allow the hon. member to make his argument because he has already started. I am sure he realizes that what he is doing now is to reply to the minister's answer. The hon. member said that I am fair. If that is the case, it means I will have to allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's reply, and I wonder where this is all going to end. In any event I recognize that he has already started making the argument. I will hear him; but after this argument is made I suggest to all hon. members that the only thing that can be taken into account by the Chair is the procedural aspect, and not the facts of the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and also I appreciate the fact that you have given me the opportunity to answer the minister. He said that the law with reference to expropriation-and I know where he gets that from-may take account of the sales spread over a period of time to arrive at land values.
What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to say about this? The answer may be that this is one method that is used by appraisers. In the last case which I had, Lake Louise Ski Lodge v. The Crown, that was the method used by our appraisers. I say, with great respect to the minister, that the method used by the Crown appraisers in that case was an economic formula which was arrived at by certain organizations which could have made money from the use of the land. What does the law say in this regard?
This is what it said in the case of Fraser v. The Crown:
The effective date for valuation of this property was the date of expropriation and the reality of the matter was that the Crown was expropriating tons of rock in the ground rather than acres of land in the rough. So that the value of the special adaptability of these lands was to be determined on the basis of the value that a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing but not anxious purchaser for the rock in situ at the date of expropriation.
But they come back to the formula and say that the land is valued at the time of taking. The fact is that if someone comes in and buys up land, there is a great deal of litigation and it costs the Crown much money to hire lawyers. If the land is not properly valued, the Crown has to pay the costs of the claimant. All this comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer. The fact is that there is land speculation, and various formulas can be used to

March 31, 1969

Alleged Leak re New Airport Site appraise land. On this ground, that sort of leak and that kind of action by the government is wrong. This in itself constitutes a prima facie case.
It is wrong to make a statement concerning the budget and government decisions' which affect increases and decreases in taxes. I submit, with the greatest respect, that it is just as wrong to hire a group of people in the advertising companies, to hire technicians from television and radio stations and then to make a statement which is disseminated in this way across the nation at the expense of the taxpayers, so that some people may enrich themselves. It is wrong for cabinet ministers and Privy Councillors to do this. It is contrary to their oath to make a disclosure on a matter dealing with money and property.
The results of these wrongs is not what we are considering here. We are considering the wrong itself, and that is the point of privilege. The motion, if it is accepted, will give us the facts and will determine whether this breach of political ethics amounted to a violation of the Privy Councillors' oath. We are entitled on this kind of motion to determine whether such a breach occurred. We can only find this out by conducting an examination in committee to find out all the facts in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member does not feel that the fact he has had two runs at convincing the Chair that he has a prima facie case is sufficient and that he should now reach his conclusion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can finish up very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I report, sir, with the greatest respect to you, that if the ministers had a right to make such a statement in the house, surely I have the right to answer it. It is not easy to make a case when one has to limit oneself to procedure. Why did the ministers not limit themselves to an argument on procedure? They came here to exonerate their consciences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member could make his argument.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With your permission, sir, I will proceed with my argument.


An hon. Member:: You should have taped this is advance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia about whom the Prime Minister asked "Who the hell is he?"-and he still does not know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if this procedural discussion might not be kept on a higher plane.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was only repeating some of the adjectives used by the Prime Minister.
If speculation had -taken place as a result of the leak, I submit it would have cost the Crown thousands of dollars in litigation and court costs. Land owners with money can afford the luxury of litigation so as to enrich themselves at the expense of the state. This is the reason behind the rule of impropriety.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a quotation into the record, but since you have asked me to limit my remarks I will not read it. I will only say that it is -to be found in a book called "The British Cabinet System", 18301938 by A. B. Keith in which the author points out the reason for the rule of secrecy. Any decision made at the cabinet level that affects taxpayers mus-t be kept secret, and the same is true of the budget. There is no exception to that rule. The exception which my two friends are trying to make is that they wanted to pre-tape the announcement so as to appear on television to show what they are doing in a particular area of the country. This is no excuse and it is no defence.
There are facts to show that the booking to make the tapes was done on March 15 and was postponed several times until the recordings were made on March 22 and 23. If the 14 minute tape in English and the 10 minute tape in French were made, as seems to be admitted by one of the ministers, then the dubbing of the tape must have been done, which meant making more cuts for the various media. The taping and the dubbing must have required about a hundred people, who would all have been in the know.
A matter of such national importance and potential is bound to give rise to many speculative stories, and I am not being critical in that regard. But I submit that this parliament is entitled to know the facts, and they are not going to get the facts from the nicely worded and planned little statement of the minister.
This will certainly mean that some rules have to be spelled out because this government appears to prefer the public relations method, the advertisers, the pre-taping and the use of all propaganda art possible. If this method is allowed to flourish, then we might as well forget about the swearing in of ministers of the Crown because the oath of office will become a farce.

March 31. 1969	COMMONS
I should like to make one last point. It is ridiculous to say that no harm was done, and that they tried to keep this quiet even though a hundred people knew about it. It is just as ridiculous as if one were to say in defence of a man who was drunk and drove up the hill on the wrong side of the road that he did not kill anyone. This will explode in their faces. The ministers must remember that they admitted in the house that they pre-taped the announcement, they used public relations, and that there may be as many as a hundred people in the know. They said this would not affect the price of land and the expropriation proceedings. Such a law stated by such ministers is hogwash. This is no defence.
I submit that there is a prima facie case that both the ministers are guilty of impropriety, and this should be investigated.
I suggest to you, sir, with reference to the procedure, that the motion was moved and that the point of privilege was raised on the floor of the house. It had to be made without notice at the time. I ask you to take that into consideration, and in the light of the minister's startling admissions it is high time that this and other matters which may be occurring in the cabinet be investigated by a standing committee of the house. If this is not done, it will not be long before a judicial inquiry is started to put these men under oath so that the Canadian people may know the facts.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I intend to limit myself entirely to the procedural question which you placed before us. The other day I listened to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), not knowing anything about the subject matter which he raised. I therefore held' my judgment on the prima facie aspect of the case in abeyance, but I earnestly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) establish a clear prima facie case for the motion which was moved.
What are we concerned with? We are concerned with two basic questions: first, was there advance information to people who are not in the public service about the likely choice of an airport, and second, was that advance information provided to such people outside the public service by the ministers concerned or under and with their authority.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
You are not concerned, Mr. Speaker-your insistence that this matter be dealt with as a
DEBATES	7295
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site matter of procedure surely underlines this- and neither are the members of this chamber concerned with whether or not there were or could have been improper consequences as a result of this disclosure. That is a matter that the committee to which this question is to be referred will have an opportunity to decide. For the purpose of a prima facie case only, I submit that all you need to know is what were the admissions, made in a rather arrogant way, in a way which suggested-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Hold it a minute-in a way which suggested that the ministers did not in the least feel there was any question about the propriety of their actions. That is why I say it is arrogance. I submit to Your Honour that any objective look at the situation must suggest that there was at least some question about the judgment and propriety of what they did.
It is in connection with the procedural question that I must refer to some of the things said by the ministers. I do so, not to argue the merits of what they said but to indicate the irrelevance of what they said to the issue that is now before Your Honour.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has said that there were discussions over a number of months in which various levels of government were involved. Precisely there lies the difference between people in the civil service of Canada, or the public service of the province of Quebec, or the public service of the city of Montreal, civil servants who, under law, by the oath that they take and the functions they perform, are expected to and in fact do observe the secrecy required, and that class of persons represented by a public relations agency, or people working for television stations, or people producing a booklet or pre-taping material.
To contend otherwise is, I suggest, a specious kind of argument that seeks to confuse rather than to illuminate, and this applies to the minister's reference to public servants being in on the discussions. For example, civil servants are engaged in the preparation of every budget that is presented in Canada. If there are budgetary discussions between officials of the federal and provincial governments, then provincial civil servants engage in them. Nobody suggests that is an improper situation. But what is improper is for a public relations agency, a private agency, private television people, private radio people and the like to be brought into a discussion about
7296
March 31. 1969

Alleged Leak re New Airport Site a decision that should have been kept secret until the last moment. That is what is in issue on the prima facie case aspect of this matter.
The ministers also say that the decision was not made until Thursday, March 27, and that all of this was done on a contingency basis. There is a limit, Mr. Speaker, to the hogwash to which members of this house as well as members of the public should be subjected. Nobody can persuade any reasonable person that the ministers responsible-especially a minister as important as the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Mar-chand) in this cabinet-would go to the trouble of having a booklet produced, of pre-taping information, without having at least a 99.99 per cent certainty that what they were proposing was going to be accepted.
To suggest that all of this was done on a contingency basis, and that therefore it did not matter, is utter hogwash and' again underlines', in my submission, the fact that the ministers themselves are now uneasy and are trying to argue the merits of the case, which as you have stated, Mb. Speaker, is not what is before us today.
In order to support their insupportable position, they also refer to the fact that their lawyers had expropriation papers ready. I expect, from what the Minister of Transport has said, that they probably had expropriation papers ready for all of the sites that were under contemplation. This can easily be done. The lawyers have the form all ready, and after the announcement is made in Ottawa a telephone call is made to them and they put the appropriate name and location on the form, and away it goes. What kind of nonsense is it to suggest that because the lawyers had to have the form ready this had anything to do with making the matter public! The form need not have contained either the name or the location in question, or anything relevant thereto.
Neither is it a defence on this point, the question of whether there is a prima facie case, to say that nobody could have gained from speculating in this matter. I want to make clear-and I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) did so last Friday-that I am not suggesting that these ministers did anything deliberately to hurt the Canadian people. I am not suggesting that at all. Nor, as I understood it, did the hon. member for Calgary North suggest that. All that I am suggesting is that these gentlemen are human and that, as the last number of

months have shown, they are quite easily prone to bad judgment.
There is a full prima facie case to the effect that in this particular instance their judgment was bad; that a committee of this house should inquire into it and declare whether or not their judgment was bad. The committee must decide whether there was the kind of urgency about preparing these statements as to justify taking the extraordinary and undesirable step of making something public before it was officially announced in the house. The committee should determine whether all of these steps that were taken were demanded by the public interest, or were demanded either by a desire for publicity or, more likely, by a desire, and I say a perfectly proper desire, to make sure that the people in the province of Quebec who were disappointed by the particular decision would be given the kind of explanation that would assuage their disappointment, if that were at all possible.
However, Mr. Speaker, all of this might have been done after the announcement was made. It is for the committee to ascertain whether the urgency was so great as to permit of the possibility of a leak that could have-I do not say did have or would have, but could have-been of great disadvantage to the Canadian people and could have resulted in a large increase in cost for this airport, as well as in entirely improper gains, not only for the people who might be expropriated to make way for the airport, but for people in the area around the airport which would also be affected in the matter of price.
For all of these reasons I urge Your Honour to hold that there is a prima facie case here that ought to go to the committee.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with the procedure of this house that is involved here, and I speak about that only. My two colleagues have spoken on the facts of the matter and obviously they are in a better position than I to talk of the facts. I should like to make a brief submission about the nature of our parliamentary privilege; the question Your Honour has to decide is whether, prima facie, the facts indicate that there was a breach of the privilege of this house.
I should like to commence my .remarks by referring to May's 17th edition, page 42, where the author states:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each house collectively
March 31, 1969

as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
The burden of this definition is that parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights without which the houses, and the members of the houses in particular, could not discharge their functions.
May goes on to comment on. various particular privileges which illustrate the nature of parliamentary privilege. There is, for example, the special right of a member that what he says to the house may not be brought up against him in an ordinary court of law. There is the special right of the House of Commons-
-to settle its own code of procedure.
Then there is the special right of the House of Commons to protect its members from threats, intimidation and misrepresentation. But I submit very strongly that there is nothing in all the authorities that shows that a statement made outside the house and not containing a distorted description of a debate is a breach of the privileges of the house. Privileges are the special rights required by the houses, and their members, if they are to do their work.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Redlich has defined "privilege" as-
-the sum of the fundamental rights of the house and its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords."
The above is quoted from page 46 of volume I. You will note, Mr. Speaker, he poses the privileges of the House of Commons over against the prerogatives of the Crown. This juxtaposition is particularly helpful in this instance because the fact complained of by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) as a "breach of privilege" is an alleged "cabinet leak".
Surely, it is a matter of prerogative that the councils of the Crown are secret. The oath taken by a person being sworn on the Privy Council is not prescribed by statute; rather it is founded in prerogative. Section 11 of the British North America Act confirms this.
It may be that the House of Commons will not tolerate the continuation in ministerial office of a person who has breached the prerogative rights of the Crown by authorizing a
29180-462J
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site cabinet leak. The house may not wish to continue such a person in office. That is not a matter to be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to which a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been sent, but rather by the whole house acting in its own free discretion on a non-confidence motion.
The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned two cases of what he called indiscretion relating to budget information in Britain. The ministers guilty of those indiscretions resigned, not because they had breached the privileges of the House of Commons, but because their indiscretions were regarded as so serious in principle that they could not expect to survive a vote in the house.
My submission, sir, is that if the hon. member for Calgary North has any basis whatsoever for a grievance, that basis cannot be that the privilege of this house has been breached.
The other day the hon. member appeared to make the second argument that the privileges of the house had been offended against because the statement had been made outside the house, rather than inside the house. It is quite true it has become a custom, a habit, to make major government announcements in the House of Commons, if the house is sitting at the time. I would inform the hon. member that this is a matter of courtesy to the house, not a matter of formal obligation, just as there is no formal obligation on members opposite to give notice of a question of privilege, or of a question on the Orders of the Day.
I believe the reason for that is obvious. To hold otherwise would be to bring to a virtual halt the operations of Her Majesty's civil and military service. It would engulf parliament in a sea of announcements. The government in all its aspects makes literally thousands of decisions every day. If it is to be under an obligation to announce all of these in the house, there would be little time to do anything else.
As I have said, it has become the habit of ministers to make these announcements out of courtesy to hon. members. The practice is not founded on any dictate of the law, any standing order, or any constitutional convention. It is not in particular founded upon any of the privileges of this chamber and therefore cannot be the subject matter of a motion founded upon a claim of breach of privilege.
I would submit from the facts put forward to the house today by my colleagues, that there is a clear indication the privileges of
March 31, 1969

Alleged Leak re New Airport Site the house or individual members have not in any way been affected. For that reason I submit that Your Honour should find there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) obligingly presented us in his remarks with many arguments which we had not put forward before.
His statement to the effect that a minister shows courtesy when giving information to the house seems to me an arrogant attitude towards the house, because I think that all the ministers, including the Prime Minister, must first tell the house of the new policies which the government plans.
If the ministers can now "only out of courtesy" inform the house of changes in the government policy, why ask hon. members to be present in the house?
Of what use will be the press, radio and television, whose function is now to make known the policy of the federal government, if, in the future, the latter deems it advisable to make its policy known through private and business agencies instead of informing the house?
The matter under study is very important and, for this reason, I would support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) with regard to the events that have taken place Thursday morning, Thursday afternoon and later, when the Minister of Transport stated' that the Quebec government and the city of Montreal had both been consulted while four provincial ministers denied that this had happened. Since that announcement was made public, we can see that those bodies are displeased, insulted and they claim that they were not consulted by the federal government.
However, we have not only the feeling that a secret of the house was betrayed, we have also evidence of it or something that amounts to evidence. Who is telling us the truth? Is it the Minister of Transport? Is it the government of the province that says it was not consulted?
I believe that for some time now, the federal government has had the knack of running counter to federal-provincial relations, especially as concerns the province of Quebec.
It is difficult to believe that the Minister of Transport came to a decision with the cabinet only Thursday morning, since the publicity, including documents in color and of superior


quality, had been printed, something which cannot be done in ten minutes.
Now, I feel justified to doubt the statement of the Prime Minister. Not only is it unlikely that the decision as only taken on Thursday, but it seems that the provincial government was not consulted, contrary to what he stated in the house on Thursday afternoon.
That is why we approve the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. Speaker:: On Friday last the hon. member for Calgary North rose on a question of privilege concerning the alleged taping of an announcement dealing with the selection of a choice for the new Montreal airport. In closing his remarks, the hon. member proposed to move a motion as follows:
I move that the question ol information of the announcement of the new Montreal International Airport at or near St. Jerome, Quebec, having been given prior to the said announcement by the government in the House of Commons and including all the circumstances under which the allegation is made, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the house, so that a full inquiry investigation may be made and that the said committee be empowered to examine all persons and papers material to the matter in question.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mainly because two of the members more directly concerned with the matter were not in the house at that moment I felt it might be fair and proper to wait until they were in the house and had an opportunity to make a statement, before a ruling could be made or might be made on the procedural aspect of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
The Chair of course is grateful to all hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. The particular point at issue at this time is whether there exists a prima facie case of privilege.
The hon. member for Calgary North raised the point as to whether this matter had been raised at the first opportunity, and I would think it was raised at the first opportunity. When the hon. member brought the question up on Friday without prior notice, I had some doubt for a moment as to whether he might not have been required to give the usual notice. At the same time I gathered that the question was being raised as a result of a question or questions asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which to some extent at least made it proper and procedurally correct
March 31, 1969

for the hon. member to move the motion. In any event I assumed that the hour's notice would have expired rather quickly and the motion could have been put at a later hour in the afternoon and taking this aspect and other aspects into consideration I felt that the hon. member should be heard then.
Hon. members who are interested in the procedural aspects of this matter raised by the hon. member will be reassured to know that the Chair has not taken this matter lightly indeed, and that many hours have been devoted since Friday to the consideration of the many complex aspects of parliamentary law and procedure as they apply to privilege. It is on the strength of this analysis, as well as on the basis of opinions expressed during the discussion in the house on Friday, and of course today, that I am prepared to make a ruling now.
I should say once again, as I indicated earlier today, that my ruling deals only with the technical and procedural aspects of the matter and not in any way with the merits of the situation or the allegations. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) stated earlier today, the question before the house is not whether there were leaks'-as he called them-or not. I add that the question is not whether or not in fact there was ministerial impropriety but whether the situation or allegations should be considered as a matter of privilege and be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has given the standard definition of privilege as defined in May's 17th edition at page 42. Later on the learned author adds:
Th,f Privileges of parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual members, because the house cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each house for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
These definitions are very general; it is perhaps on purpose that a clear and logical definition has never been given of parliamentary privilege. However, authorities on the subject argue that privilege includes freedom of speech, in the sense of immunity against suits in defamation; freedom from arrest in certain very limited circumstances; exemption from court duty as a witness or as a juror; protection against undue influence, and reflection on members.
There are also the collective privileges of the house dealing with the control of its proceedings and publications; the calling and
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site protection of witnesses; reflections and indignities affecting the house as a body or as an institution; the right to set up its own rules, and the traditional privileges claimed by the Speaker on behalf of the house at the opening of parliament.
It will be seen, thus, that parliamentary privilege is concerned with the special rights of members, not in their capacity as ministers or as party leaders, or whips, or parliamentary secretaries but strictly in their capacity as members. Allegations of misjudgment, or mismanagement, or maladministration on the part of a minister in the performance of his ministerial duties, does not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege.
A thorough study of each and every one of the cases of privilege raised in the British house during a period of 20 years shows clearly that each and every one of the cases reported deal with situations where members felt they had been adversely affected in their right to participate in parliamentary work without undue pressure, influence or accusations either from inside or outside the house. In fact nowhere in the British or Canadian precedents can there be found authority for the proposition that administrative "misdeeds" as such can be raised by way of questions of privilege.
The hon. member for Calgary North made reference to two oases in the British house and it may be helpful if I were to summarize these two precedents.
The first one relates to what is known as the Thomas case, and that summary is as follows:
In this case Mr. Thomas resigned from the government over a budget leak in the budget of 1936. There was no question of privilege, but on May 5, 1936, Mr. Chamberlain on behalf of the government moved:
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into an urgent matter of public importance, that is to say, whether, and if so, in what circumstances and by what persons, any unauthorized disclosure was made of information relating to the budget for the present year or any use made of any such information for the purposes of private gain.
This motion was made under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and after debate the motion was carried, and it is known that the tribunal was set up and made a report because of June 11, 1936, a further motion was made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, as follows:
That the report of the tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be now considered.
7300	COMMONS
Alleged Leak re New Airport Site
After debate on that motion it was resolved on the main question that the report be accepted, and this occurred on June 11, 1936. In parenthesis, before the motion was moved Mr. Thomas resigned his seat having previously resigned from the cabinet.
The point here I suggest that is relevant to our discussion was that the matter was not considered at any moment by way of question of privilege.
The second case referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North relates to the Dalton case, and here again I summarize the proceedings in relation to that case.
On November 13, 1947, Mr. Dalton as Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked a question concerning the forecast of budget proposals in a newspaper. Mr. Dalton stated that in reply to questions put to him by the correspondent of the Star newspaper he had indicated to that correspondent a subject matter contained in the publication in question. He said that this was a grave indiscretion on his part and offered his apologies to the house.
The next step occurred when Mr. Churchill put a notice of motion down for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the circumstances of the disclosures of the budget information. Mr. Churchill raised this on November 17, and in the meantime the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resigned.
On November 20 the question was proposed on Mr. Churchill's motion and it was agreed to. That motion reads:
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of budget information by Mr. Dalton, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Wednesday 12th November:
That Messrs.-
Then follows the names of committee members.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records-
And there is also reference to the quorum.
It is of interest of course to note, and again I suggest to hon. members that this is the important point of these two cases which were quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North, that although there were substantive motions made to the house for the consideration of alleged improprieties on the part of cabinet ministers the consideration which took place was not by way of reference to the Committee on Privileges and Elections-was not founded on a question of privilege but rather on substantive motions.

DEBATES	March 31. 1969
In the time at my disposal I have been able to find but one case in our own house in over 100 years of proceedings where the conduct of a minister has been subject to review by means of question of privilege.
On May 22, 1924, an hon. member raised a question with regard to the conduct of the then minister of labour and stated that he was credibly informed and that he believed he was able to establish by satisfactory evidence that the then minister did withdraw from the Home Bank thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
This precedent, I suggest, was outside the administrative responsibility of the minister in that he used cabinet information to his own personal advantage. It was not a matter of administration but a question of his personal honesty, integrity and conduct. This is the one instance we have in all the precedents. In this instance the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In closing I could do no better than refer the house to the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959 in which he stated:
In finding that a question of the privileges of the House is not prima facie involved in this motion, I am making a procedural decision the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the House of the matters in issue. The effect is to refuse precedence to this discussion but not to prevent it. No barrier is raised to the presentation of this matter under different circumstances on another occasion. For example, the subject matter could be brought before the House as an amendment to the next motion to go into Supply. I should add too that the debate on the point of order on Wednesday and the discussion of the same matter on the estimates of the Minister of Transport were so broad that there would be little left to be said if the motion itself were to be debated this morning.
Hon. members have now or will have within the next few days or next few weeks an opportunity if they so wish as members of the opposition to bring this matter back, perhaps as a matter of no confidence. I suggest to hon. members that if they wish this matter to be considered further it should be dealt with in this way either by substantive motion or by a motion of no confidence in the government.
March 31, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 21, 1969-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications) :
That the Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.
Mr, Speaker:: I remind hon. members that when this motion was raised last week the Chair suggested that hon. members interested in the procedural aspects of the motion might be given an opportunity to think over the matter of their arguments. From the conversation I had with hon. members shortly before the opening of the house this afternoon I understand there is now a disposition to proceed with the procedural argument. If this is the case I should like to hear hon. members.
I might add if I may at this time that the Speakers mind has been occupied for some time now with questions of privilege. Therefore, I should like, with the approval of hon. members, to suggest that if they will present their arguments now, I would have a look at the blues and give an opinion later this afternoon after I have had an opportunity to look at the learned arguments which I know will be submitted for the guidance of the Chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances surrounding this matter it might be well very briefly to refresh the memory of members of the house. I have always found this to be a useful exercise especially in respect of those members sitting to Your Honour's right; their memories frequently need refreshing.
This matter arises out of a rather peculiar set of facts. Last fall the Committee on Transport and Communications brought into the house a series of recommendations. Hon. members of the opposition on this side took exception to this report on the ground that it did not contain a very vital recommendation which was founded on a motion presented before the committee. As a result the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.. Following that a reasoned settlement was made and on January 17 the
Transport and Communications President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to consider and report upon the problems of transportation in the Atlantic Provinces, and that, for the purposes of its inquiry, the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the Clerk and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the Committee.
Following that the committee reported. The gist of its report, which is the subject we are considering outside of the formal and introductory measure is contained in two very brief paragraphs which if I may I should like to place on the record.
Your Committee recommends that Subsection 4 of Section 335 of the Railway Act be amended and the freeze extended to December 31, 1969.
And again:
Your Committee recommends that the Order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland-
This as hon. members know has reference to the passenger train known in Newfoundland as the Bullet.
-on April 5, 1969, be left in abeyance, until your Committee tables its complete report in respect to this question.
As I understand the matter there are two or three particular suggestions contained in the argument made by the President of the Privy Council and referred to by Your Honour when you summed up on the 27th of this month, as it appears in Hansard. The first suggestion is that the report goes beyond the terms of reference by which this house authorized this committee to make certain inquiries. Let me deal with that. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that cannot be regarded as a very serious argument. If so, then over the course of the years I have been here the hundreds of committee reports which have been made based upon terms of reference no wider than this are all out of order.
The terms of reference were that the committee be empowered to consider and report upon the problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. I think we can all see that both the recommendations touch upon problems of communication and transportation in the Atlantic provinces. If such is the case then surely the committee is entitled to examine upon them and report upon them. I do not think this is an argument which will be seriously pursued.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not make it.
7302	COMMONS
Transport and Communications


Gerald William Baldwin: It is in issue. I think probably this is a good time to touch upon it lor enlightenment in respect of the future. The other argument made by the President of the Privy Council was that the matter referred to in the second part of the recommendations is sub judice, on the basis that the Canadian Transport Commission has considered the question of railway service in Newfoundland and has made a report which has been filed and which probably is in process of being acted upon. The President of the Privy Council pointed out that this report was an interim report.
This matter was also touched upon by Your Honour. With the greatest respect I say it is the most transparent argument. We have had a lot of transparent arguments made by the hon. gentleman and his colleagues opposite during the course of this session.
I should like to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 152, paragraphs (1) and (2). Paragraph (2) reads as follows:
The Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record and therefore may not be attacked except by way of impeachment.
Now I should like to read paragraph (3) of citation 152 because I think this is germane.
Matters which have been adjudicated upon by the Railway Commissioners-
We may substitute the Canadian Transport Commission.
-and taken in appeal to the Governor-in-Council cannot be considered sub-judice while the appeal is pending, because the Governor-in-Council then acts in an administrative and not a judicial capacity.
The President of the Privy Council last week in making his argument said that this parliament had in past years, and quite truthfully so, set out an appeal procedure for matters dealt with by the Board of Transport Commissioners which now we call the Canadian Transport Commission. But there are two aspects of this appeal procedure. There is appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of certain aspects and there is an appeal to the Governor in Council.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Surely, neither a committee of this house nor the house itself can be disqualified from dealing with an order made by the Canadian Transport Commission which to our knowledge has not been appealed to the Governor in Council or the Supreme Court of Canada, although this is a possibility which can be held out.

DEBATES	March 31. 1969
I ask Your Honour to take judicial notice of the procedure set out. The Governor in Council may at any time at his discretion upon the petition of any person, party or company interested, or on his own motion without any petition or application being made, vary or rescind any order, decision or regulation of the commission. In other words, any order made by the commission is always subject to review by the Governor in Council in an administrative capacity. In an attempt to persuade the Governor in Council, any person, any party or any company may petition the Governor in Council and ask him to vary or rescind an order. Surely the government is not suggesting that a committee of this house is prohibited in any way from doing what other people can do? Yet this is the essence of the argument made by the President of the Privy Council.
I suggest that a careful reading of this appeal clause will show beyond any shadow of doubt that any person, company or party may at any time go to the Governor in Council, despite the form in which an order is made or despite the stage to which it may have progressed. There is no evidence before the committee or before this house that the question is before the Supreme Court of Canada and I am convinced the hon. gentleman would assure me if I were to ask him that the Supreme Court of Canada is not seized with jurisdiction at this time. In these circumstances I strongly submit it is unthinkable that a member or Committee of this house should be deprived of a privilege or right to make recommendations and suggestions to the Governor in Council, which is open to him as an individual or to it, particularly when this house saw fit to instruct the committee by its terms of reference to examine this issue and bring in recommendations. On this ground alone I suggest the argument used by the President of the Privy Council must fail.
We come now to one point on which a question might be raised. Reading what Your Honour had to say on March 27, I noticed that you, too, had it in mind, and I will admit that at first it caused me some concern. It was the suggestion that the wording of the committee report, by the use of the word "recommends" constituted in effect a direction to the government to do a certain thing, in other words to appeal, amend or vary an act of parliament. This was never the intention. I am making my argument reasonably expansive here, Mr. Speaker, because I think this
March 31. 1969	COMMONS
debate will affect the practice we follow in this house. It is true that when a private member puts down a private member's motion he must be very careful about the wording he uses. This arises from the inhibitions placed upon private members when it comes to proposing motions which in any way touch on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Constitutionally these rest exclusively on the shoulders of the government. This I suggest is the only reason for the limitation.
I did not have much time this morning, Mr. Speaker, but I happen to have copies in my office of several reports of previous committees. I have here the report of the joint committee on Indian affairs, 1960-61. Listen to the recommendations made at that time.
The Indian Act should be amended to formally recognize lawful possession of land held by an Indian for twenty years and also to permit band councils to allocate land on a conditional basis.
Again:
As the present provisions of Section 88 of the Act bar many Indians from ordinary sources of credit, the section should be amended to permit individual Indians to waive the protection afforded as regards their personal property; and band revenue funds should be subject to attachment in respect of judgments for damages-
And so on. Further:
Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Act relating to the sale or barter of produce from reserves in the three prairie provinces should be deleted.
I have also found a report of the Special Committee on Food and Drugs which dealt with certain questions in 1963. Here is one of the recommendations which were made:
That the Pest Control Act be amended to prevent the importation of pesticides not registered under the Act, from a country outside of Canada.
Here, in the first two books I looked at, are four specific recommendations of committees of this house concerning amendments to existing statutes, and they are set out in far more specific and definite terms than is the report of the committee on transport which is the subject matter of this debate. A detailed examination of committee reports would disclose many more. In the case we are considering, the wording used is simply "Your committee recommends..."
The word "recommends" may mean a lot of things to different people, Mr. Speaker, but I have had a chance to look at the dictionary and I think a fairly common understanding of it would be "to commend to the favourable attention of, or to counsel as a course of action." The words are used in the report in
DEBATES	7303
Transport and Communications the context of this meaning. It does not constitute a direction to the government. It is, rather, a suggestion that it take into account the recommendations of the committee with regard to a serious and particular matter.
In this context I ask whether committees are to be prohibited in the future from making reports containing a recommendation to the house and to the government that certain statutes be changed? I am not speaking about a direction, or about any integral part of the proposal to amend or repeal legislation, but of a proposal by way of counsel or advice that the government should do so.
I submit with deference that no case has been made for the contention put forward from the other side of the house. I shall sum up on one further issue, this time going somewhat beyond the terms of the objections raised by the President of the Privy Council. We are now engaged in this house in dealing with a new set of rules. We have placed on the shoulders of committees the burden of doing a geat deal of the work which was formerly done in the house, the house no longer having time to deal in detail with a great many complex and difficult subjects. This system will fail, as it is failing now, if the government takes the course of raising shoddy and petty points of order and obstruction to prevent committees from doing the kind of work they should be doing, if the new system is to succeed.
Merely because hon. gentlemen opposite are refugees from the stone age who clutter up the treasury benches, masquerading as Liberals, and who are not prepared to go along with the rest of us in accomplishing the work of reform and progress needed to be done if this house is to carry out the business assigned to it, does not mean that Your Honour should agree with them. If committees are to function, then this continual placing of obstacles in their path merely because they have not done what the government wanted them to do will reduce the whole thing to rubble and waste. I suggest that Your Honour should take judicial notice of that fact when you come to a decision on the point of order which has been raised by the President of the Privy Council.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot expect that the debate on this point of order will sustain the same amount of interest that was shown in the debate on the earlier question of privilege,
March 31. 1969

Transport and Communications but I submit that this one might be just as important, if not more so.
What is involved in this point of order is not a contest between the government and the opposition but rather the whole question of the relationship of our standing committees to parliament itself. If there is a contest, as I say, it is not between the government and the opposition; it is not even between parliament and one of its committees; it is a contest between the government and a standing committee. I think, therefore, that the issue is a very important one.
Last Tuesday, March 25, we had a bit of debate on the matter. On that occasion the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) went into the substance of the issue, as he may do further today; but the rest of us confined ourselves to our contention that that was not the point at which to raise this question of order. We felt that it should not have been raised until after the motion of the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) had been put. I still have my doubts on that, but Your Honour has ruled that this is the place where we can have this discussion; therefore we shall abide by your ruling.
In your remarks to the house on Thursday of last week, Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold as to make a synopsis of what you said, you first of all cited Beauchesne's citation 323, paragraph 1, as a basis for its being possible to rule a committee report out of order. Then you went on to state three questions to which you would like us to address ourselves. I should like to organize my remarks around the framework that Your Honour gave us last Thursday.
First may I read citation 323, paragraph 1, which Your Honour drew to our attention. It is as follows:
A committee report may be ruled out of order though it has been received by the House, and a motion to concur therein cannot then be entertained.
In parenthesis, after that citation, there is an indication as to the basis upon which this dictum was written into Beauchesne's fourth edition. It arises from an incident that took place in the House of Commons as recorded at page 216 in volume 8 of the Journals of the House of Commons. I went to the library and got the Journals, volume 8, and this takes us back to the year 1874. That is even before any of us were in this house, or anywhere else, for that matter.
I found it very interesting to follow through the incident on which this citation is based. Incidentally, I sought also to study it

by reference to Hansard but found that the printing of Hansard did not get started until 1875; so for 1874 one has to consult a scrapbook of newspaper clippings to find out what went on in parliament. Mind you the newspaper clippings were not just reports by reporters; they were verbatim accounts of what was said.
It appears that on April 8, 1874, as recorded at page 25 of the Journals, a select committee was appointed and given a very specific task. The task was to inquire into the then tariff, in the interests of agriculture and commerce in British Columbia, and report to the house the way in which the Canadian tariff of that day affected the agricultural and commercial interests of the province, and so on. The instruction was quite clear. This select committee was to report upon the way in which the then Canadian tariff affected agriculture and commerce in the then new province of British Columbia; and that was all.
The committee made its report on April 30, 1874. It appears at pages 141 and 142 of the Journals. It is a very interesting report. I do not think anyone can deny that it goes far beyond the terms of reference, the gist of which I read a moment ago. It takes about a page and a half, it has 14 paragraphs, and goes over all the grievances which British Columbia then had against the rest of Canada. It sounds almost as though they wanted to separate before they really got into the family. The report ended with this recommendation:
That an act Imposing a special tariff be enacted.
There is no question but this was far removed from the instruction that they should report on the ways in which the Canadian tariff was affecting agriculture and commerce in the province of British Columbia. Accordingly, when on May 11, 1874, as noted in the Journals at page 216, the chairman of the committee, whose name was Mr. Bunster, moved that this report be concurred in, objection was taken to the motion on the ground that it asked for concurrence in a report which ought not to have been received; by the house. It was on this point that I was anxious to consult Hansard but had to settle for newspaper clippings that are to be found in interesting scrapbooks in the library. I found the argument was that the committee was asking the house to enact a bill involving a financial provision, which can only be proposed on the initiative of a minister of the Crown.
March 31. 1969	COMMONS
After listening at some length to the debate, Mr. Speaker expressed the opinion that it did go beyond the terms of reference; that it did ask for something that only a minister could propose. While he did not make a precise ruling that the report was out of order, he suggested to Mr. Bunster that the motion to adopt the report might be withdrawn. Mr. Bunster agreed and that seems to be the end of the story.
But I submit that we have changed things a bit since 1874. I think I could make a case that there is quite a difference between that report of 1874 and the report that is now before us. That report was made by a committee that was asked to consider ways in which the Canadian tariff was affecting things in British Columbia, but instead of doing that the committee came back and recommended a special tariff for that province. In our case a committee has been asked to study the whole transportation problem in the Atlantic provinces and it has come back with two specific recommendations.
But the main point I want to make about this is in line with something the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has already said. This is the reason I presume to take a bit of time on this issue. My point is that not only have there been changes because of the passing of time, the normal kind of changes that take place, but we in this parliament have deliberately set about to upgrade our committees system. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may now draw your attention to a paragraph of the third report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House which was presented by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on Friday, December 6, 1968.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to read this paragraph. It is paragraph 12 at page 434 of the Votes and Proceedings for that day:
It will be apparent from the recommendations already made in relation to supply and the legislative process that your Committee envisages a significant extension of the functions of the Standing Committees and in consequence a substantial strengthening of their importance and influence. They would become the forums in which the details of expenditure and legislation would be closely considered. They would investigate the operations and continuing programs of government departments and would develop areas of subject specialisation. We would expect debate in the Standing Committees to be well-informed and pertinent; their members to become influential in the areas of their specialized experience; and their reports to the House to assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a 29180-4631
DEBATES	7305
Transport and Communications whole than to simple political differences. We also anticipate that the business of the House would be greatly expedited and handled more efficiently through exploiting the potential of the committee system of the House to the full.
This is a report that was made in parliament. Hon. members are aware that what we are trying to do is to upgrade our committee system to give more importance to our committees. I know that we still impose upon them certain limitations and we still have a system of responsible government, but we have moved a long way from 1874. We do want our committees to be constructive, critical, significant, pertinent and all the other things that were spelled out in the paragraph which I read. I think, therefore, that it is unfortunate that when this committee comes in with some specific recommendations a member of the government objects to that report being made. You do not upgrade a committee by slapping it down when it makes a recommendation the government does not like.
I should like to speak now on the three particular questions that Your Honour asked us to consider when you spoke on this matter last Thursday. They were, first of all, the sub judice question, second, the form in which the report is drafted, and third, the question as to whether or not the report goes beyond the terms of reference given to the committee.
Dealing first of all with the sub judice question, there is not much I need to add to what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has already said, but again- I would like to read the citation that you drew to our attention on Thursday, namely citation 152 (2) in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record and therefore may not be attacked except by way of impeachment.
We accept the fact that whatever applied to the Board of Railway Commissioners in this book applies now to the Canadian Transport Commission. But I submit that in no sense and by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the committee report is attacking the Canadian Transport Commission. I think there are times when this sub judice doctrine is really pressed too far. As I understand it, it means that people should not be allowed to express opinions that interfere with the making of a judicial decision. What is involved in this? The Canadian Transport Commission has already given the Canadian National Railways until April 15 to see whether its bus
March 31. 1969

Transport and Communications service is as good as the train* service was. It has not yet made a decision, but a committee of this house has come along and suggested- and after all that is what the recommendation means-that that trial period be extended, and that no final order be made until the committee has completed its discussion of the matter.
I suggest that there is no interference with a judicial decision involved in that kind of a recommendation, that there is no attack on the Canadian Transport Commission, and that it is really not an argument of any weight to say that this report must not be allowed because somehow or other it offends the sub judice doctrine.
I come now to your second question, namely as to the form of the report. Like the hon. member for Peace River I recognize that the language of the report is not the language that we usually employ. Usually, to be on the safe side, we say in reports or in private members notices of motion that we ask the government to consider the advisability of doing such and such. In this case the committee shortened its language and simply said "we recommend". It recommends two things: first of all, that the freeze on the maritime freight rates be extended to December 31, 1969, and second, that the trial period, so far as the Canadian National Railways* operation of certain trains in Newfoundland is concerned, be extended beyond April 15.
Your Honour is concerned lest by our dealing with such a report, and perhaps passing it, we put these things into effect. I submit that this is not the case at all. Granted that it is different language than we usually employ, surely what Your Honour has to consider is what the effect would be if we were to concur in this report. I submit that the effect is very clear. We would simply say the same thing that the committee said. We, the House of Commons, would not be passing a bill and would not be putting a statute into effect; we would be doing exactly what the committee did, that is to recommend, with the weight of the House of Commons, that subsection 4 of section 335 of the Railway Act be amended and the freeze extended to December 31, 1969, and that the trial period with regard to bus versus the railway service in Newfoundland be continued beyond April 15 until the committee has discussed the matter in full.
I see in this something analogous to what we do at the report stage of bills. When a committee reports a bill, we go through a

procedure at the report stage. If an amendment is put down, we have a debate; if there is no amendment, we do not have a debate, but in either case in the end the house passes a motion concurring in the bill. It does not pass the bill and it does not put it into effect. That has to be done in the way that is provided, namely by a motion for its third reading. Not only that, it also has to go to the other place and in due course it must receive royal assent. So, to suggest that there is anything mandatory about this, I think is unfair to the committee. The committee has recommended to us that two things be done, and the chairman, by moving the motion for concurrence, is asking us to say the same thing: to recommend that those two things be done. If we pass this report, it will be making that same recommendation to the government. The third question that Your Honour raised had to do with the terms of reference and with whether or not the committee report goes beyond the terms of reference that were given to it. I find that hard to credit when one looks at those terms of reference. They were given to the committee on January 17. I believe the hon. member for Peace River read the terms of reference, but let me repeat them. I will read from the Votes and Proceedings, of January 17, 1969, page 599. They read as follows:
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), seconded by Mr. Hellyer, it was ordered,-That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to consider and report upon the problems of transportation in the Atlantic Provinces,-
There is no limitation of any kind there.
-and that, for the purposes of its inquiry, the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the Clerk and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the Committee.
Surely those terms of reference are wide enough to include recommendations by the committee that something be done about two things that seemed to the committee to be relevant to the problems of transportation* in the Atlantic provinces. Because the recommendations are within the terms of reference, I feel that Your Honour should allow this report.
As I said earlier, the case in 1874 on which Beauchesne's citation is based was one which was resolved by the Speaker asking the member to withdraw the motion. It was not specifically ruled out of order. In this case, I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that the wording of the report is not the wording that is usually employed, but if there is
March 31, 19G9

any doubt I implore Your Honour to resolve that doubt in favour of the committee. If the house does not accept that, or if the government wants by an amendment, once the report has been moved, to ask the house to refer it back, then it may do so. But I submit that if that decision is to be made and if this committee is to have its report sent back to it, that is a decision for the house itself to make. It should not be done by the government asking Your Honour to rule the report itself out of order.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Therefore, though there may be arguments on both sides, I feel that on balance the arguments are on the side of the committee, that Your Honour should give the benefit of the doubt to the committee and let us proceed with the motion for the adoption of this report.


René Matte: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall a few general principles concerning that matter.
With the new procedure adopted at the beginning of this session, the role of the committees was upgraded; they were given greater importance, and it was thought that it would expedite the business of the house.
According to our parliamentary system, the representation within committees ensures a majority of government members. If the government will not accept the report of 'that committee, it is, in fact, disowning its own members on the said committee.
Here the following question of principle claims our attention: Has the cabinet exclusive control over committee reports? In the affirmative, this is a breach of parliamentary freedom. The question is whether the committees exist or not. The quality of the work and efficiency of the role of committees are here put in question, and I believe that for the sake of the committee principle, this report must be accepted, even if, as some previous speakers have suggested, the House should refer it again to a committee.
To summarize these general principles, there is first of all parliamentary freedom. There is the question of possible disapproval by the government to the work done in a committee. I think that this cannot be condoned in the house, and accordingly, in order to follow this principle, this motion should be withdrawn.
Transport and Communications [English]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to put my views before the house on Tuesday last. They are to be found at page 7058 of Hansard and following. At that time the question, which was dealt with later in my favour, was with respect to my right to raise the point at that stage. I can only say that the extensive argument, made today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might have been directed to the question whether or not I should raise the point at that stage; but the fact is that the Chair already has made a decision against him in that regard. Therefore, his reference to the 1874-I think it was-precedent is really irrelevant.
I would point out to him and also to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that while it is true that we have given a greater role to the committees, it is especially important, because of that greater role, that they act within the well established rules of procedure that are followed by this house. For this reason on Tuesday last I raised two points with respect to the particular committee report.
Your Honour has asked that we direct ourselves to three questions: the question whether or not the matter is sub judice; the question whether this is a direction rather than a recommendation; and also the question regarding the terms of reference. I should like to emphasize that at no time on Tuesday last did I take any exception to the report as going beyond the terms of reference. I think if the hon. member for Peace River looks that up he will find I made no objection in that regard.
I should like to refer to the sub judice question first, the question as to what extent the sub judice doctrine applies here. In this regard I should like to put on the record again the actual details of the order that was made. The fact is that on July 3, 1968 the Canadian Transport Commission made an order dealing with rail passenger service in Newfoundland. This order was an interim order and concluded with the following words-and I quote them because I think they are important when deciding whether or not the matter is still before the commission:
If, prior to April 15, 1969, Canadian National Railways fails or is unable to perform any of the conditions enumerated above, or if at any time before that date the Committee is not satisfied that the bus service is at least as good as the present passenger train service, it may upon notice to the applicants and to all parties who appeared
March 31, 1969

Transport and Communications before it in December 1967, reconvene the hearing to consider whether in the exercise of its general powers under the Railway Act, it should impose further conditions to be met prior to the discontinuance of the passenger train service or direct the adoption of such measures as may be necessary to ensure the adequacy of the bus service.
The intent and the effect of that part of the order was to keep the matter before the commission. I take this to be acknowledged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his argument. Therefore, the commission had not completed its adjudication. In effect, the order is analogous-referring to another legal proceeding-to an order nisi. Moreover, I understand that the standing committee was given evidence showing that the commission is still active in deciding what order it should make.
Perhaps it will be contended that the Canadian Transport Commission is not a body to which the sub judice doctrine is relevant. I should like to refer, as Your Honour did, to citation 152 (2) of Beauchesne and the fact that the status of the Board of Railway Commissioners has been carried on by the Canadian Transport Commission. Citation 152 (3) of Beauchesne has been referred to because reference is made there to matters before the railway commissioners. It was for this reason that I referred last Tuesday to section 53 (1) of the Railway Act, which provides:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the Board, whether such order or decision is made inter pares or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the Board and upon all parties.
From a reading of citation 152 (3) and section 53 (1) of the Railway Act, it appears that matters still under adjudication by the Canadian Transport Commission are in fact sub judice; but once an appeal on a matter has been taken to the Governor in Council, as provided for, the matter is no longer sub judice. In this instance although those opposed to the interim order of July 13, 1968 could have done so, nobody made an appeal to the Governor in Council. Therefore, the 1923-I think it was-precedent referred to in that case does not apply in this particular instance. Since the matter has not been determined finally by the Canadian Transport Commission and since it has not been removed from the Commission by way of an

appeal, I submit that the matter is still sub judice and as such should not be discussed in
this house or in the committee.
Secondly, an inquiry has been made as to the form of the recommendation in the report. I am referring to the recommendation with regard to the Newfoundland railway. To whom is the recommendation addressed? The hon. member for Peace River referred at length to other precedents in which the recommendations were addressed to the government; but in this case-


Gerald William Baldwin: No, I did not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, the nature of those particular recommendations is a matter of opinion. But it is perfectly clear in this case that that is not to whom this recommendation is addressed. The house itself could not leave the order of the commission in abeyance. No attempt has been made to use the procedure of appeal to the Governor in Council as I have already indicated.
Therefore, the conclusion must be that this recommendation is in truth an attempt by the committee either to give a direction to the Canadian Transport Commission or to the Canadian National Railways, two bodies which have been given specific responsibilities by a statute made by Parliament. It is my submission that it is no more appropriate for the committee to give a recommendation to either of those two bodies than it is for the committee to give a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court in respect to a matter that is before it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If the house generally decides it wants to make a change in the law with regard to a particular matter, then the course of action is quite clear. It can proceed by passing a bill. My submission is that the House of Commons ought not to be asked either to concur or refuse to concur in a directive that in any case should not issue.
As to whether the committee's report is within the terms of reference, I indicated I have no objection to the report in that regard and therefore make no further comment on this point. Some mention has been made, Mr. Speaker, about the new committee procedure. In the order made by the house to establish the new committees, it was assumed that the reports made by the committees would comply with the general rules of order.
I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the careful attention you
March 31, 1369
have given to this matter previously. What is important is not the political scuffling in this particular case, but rather that whatever is done must be done in order, and be a sound precedent. Your ruling in this case will be of considerable importance in regulating committee procedures hereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not like to limit discussion on the point, but I have listened to the arguments raised by the President of the Privy Council and the point raised by the horn, member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It may help hon. members in their decision as to whether they should pursue the matter further if I say I am rather impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. At the same time I know this is a matter of interest to hon. members who are members of the committee.
I wonder whether any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the matter on procedural grounds. I already heard the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan) when he expressed his views last week.
I am not sure there is any point in pursuing the matter further.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: wish to make a few remarks in relation to this matter. I am more constrained now to do so, having heard the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. I will be brief.
I beg your indulgence to bear with me for a moment in order that I may refer to the fact that it is appropriate that we are discussing this matter today. The point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council is an objection to the contents of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. It objects to that part of the report which deals with the committee's recommendation asking that the decision of the C.T.C. with regard to rail passenger service in Newfoundland be held in abeyance until after April 15. This would enable the committee to make its final recommendation to the house. It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because today is the twentieth anniversary of Newfoundland entering Confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank hon. members for their very kind response to that remark. Once again I extend to the Minister of Transport
Transport and Communications (Mr. Hellyer) and his colleagues a general invitation to come to Newfoundland and enjoy the benefits and comforts of a ride across that province, on the Newfie Bullet. When reminding the President of the Privy Council that today is the twentieth anniversary of Newfoundland entering Confederation, I also remind him that tomorrow is April Fool's Day. It is probably true he needs no reminder of that fact.
Since last fall the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has been very involved in discussions with regard to this matter. The second report of the committee, which has already been referred to, was the subject matter of some dispute in this house. On December 10 last I raised a question of privilege in relation thereto and Your Honour ruled that there was a prima facie case, and this was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is still on the order paper and the subject matter of debate in this house.
If the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader had acceded to our request to bring this matter forward for debate, we would not be in this position today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member and ask him to follow the fine example of other hon. members who have taken part in the debate up until now, and have limited their contributions to the procedural aspect of the question, in order that the Chair may give a decision.
The hon. member must realize the report is not before the house at the present time. The motion has not been moved. The only point at issue is whether the Chair will allow the motion to be put. There is no reason why we should go into the historical background of this report. I would think the hon. member should refer to the three points which I asked hon. members to consider, and advise the Chair. If he will do this I will be in a better position to give a judgment later this afternoon.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to deal with the first part of your ruling. At no time was there a suggestion during the course of the committee hearings that this matter was sub judice. It was not suggested during the discussion leading up to the second report of the transport committee when the subject matter of the C.T.C.'s decision regarding Newfoundland rail transportation was discussed. There was no suggestion

March 31. 1969

Transport and Communications of this during the course of the deliberations of the Committee on Privileges and Elections or during the deliberations under the present reference of the Transport Committee from the house. No suggestion was made as to whether this matter was not clearly defined as being a legitimate subject for study by the committee in carrying out its reference from the house, to study transportation in the Atlantic provinces.
There was extensive examination of witnesses in connection with this matter. The President of the Transport Commission, some senior officials of this commission and officials of the Canadian National Railways were examined and gave evidence in this regard. At no time was there any suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was sub judice. I will not deal with the other argument. As Your Honour said, they have been dealt with very extensively by the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members of this house.
I remind Your Honour it is not entirely inappropriate to discuss this matter today because the terms of union deal with the matter of rail transportation in Newfoundland, and the disposal of the Newfoundland Railway, one of the assets of the Newfoundland government when it became a province of Canada. The commission at that time felt obliged to make reference to it. They referred to term 31(a) of the Terms of Union with Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and remind him that at the present time he is not dealing with the point of order before the house.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Well, Mr. Speaker, I may not be an expert on the rules but I would point out to Your Honour that I have some interest in this matter as a member of the committee. You have not heard any members of the Transport Committee today. You have heard those with an established reputation in the house as experts on the rules, but I say to you with great respect that there are other hon. members of the house who have a vital interest in this matter and who have every right to make a comment upon it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that hon. members ordinarily have a right, according to our rules, to make a comment on what is before the house. However the report is not


before the house. When the report is before the house the hon. member, as he says, as an interested member in this matter, will have the right to make extensive remarks, but at the present time the only thing before the house is a very limited procedural point, and thus I took the liberty of inviting the hon. member to restrict his remarks to this limited aspect of the matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with just two points that were raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). First of all he suggested that parliament has no jurisdiction over this matter because it is still rightly before the Canadian Transport Commission. I would submit that the Canadian Transport Commission is a commission that operates under authority delegated from parliament, and in my humble submission parliament always has jurisdiction because parliament in essence is the final authority.
The second point I would like to deal with is that the President of the Privy Council stated that in his view the matter was sub judice because no appeal had been made to the Governor in Council under section 53 of the Railway Act. I would like to correct him on that, and I suggest he check with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, because an appeal was submitted to the Governor in Council on March 28 by the six Progressive Conservative members of parliament who sit on this side of the house. We felt constrained and obliged to make that appeal because the people of Newfoundland, by unanimous resolution of the Legislature of Newfoundland on February 28, recommended that the implementation of the C.T.C. decision be delayed for two years.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice, forebearance and co-operation with the Chair when I suggested that we might limit ourselves this afternoon to a very limited aspect of the very important matter now before the house.
I have listened with attention to the arguments advanced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), which were essentially a restatement of the interesting points made when the matter was initially raised last week. 1 have also heard the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the other hon. members who took part in the debate. They referred to the three points which I had mentioned when the matter was first brought up in the house namely 1, whether the committee report goes beyond
March 31. 1969

the committee's terms of reference; 2, whether the report offends the sub judice rule or doctrine, and 3, possible objection with the form of the report.
First, dealing specifically with the terms of reference of the committee I would remind hon. members that that argument was not made seriously by any hon. member, and indeed the President of the Privy Council said that he was not putting forth a view in this regard, and so I will not consider that aspect of the matter in any way.
The second important point is whether the report offends the sub judice doctrine, and in the cource of the discussion many clauses in the Railway Act have been referred to me for consideration. I doubt very much whether it is the duty of the Chair to take the Railway Act or any other statute to see whether or not the report submitted by the committee offends in any way some of the clauses of any statute.
It has been said that the House of Commons might inform the government of its opinion on the matter since, according to section 53 of the Railway Act, the Governor in Council may vary or rescind an order or decision of the Canadian Transport Commission. That is the kind of argument that has been submitted to the Chair, and in my submission it is not the kind that the Chair should be asked to review. The Chair, as I have said, should not be invited to go into the constitutional aspects, the jurisdictional aspects of a statute or of a clause of a statute which has been considered by a committee. These considerations, I suggest, should not be adjudged by the Speaker. These matters may be adjudged by the house itself and the way to proceed is by means of a motion. On the motion for concurrence it may be that the report be not now concurred in and that it be referred back to the committee for further consideration or for the purpose of deleting the paragraph which recommended that the order of the Transport Commission be left in abeyance.
My suggestion to hon. members is that none of those considerations should be decided upon by the Chair at this time.
A similar question was raised in this house on July 1, 1919. I am sorry that I have to refer so far back, but at the same time I am comforted in the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in support of his case referred back to 1874. That report can be found at page 498 of the
Transport and Communications Journals of 1919, when, on the motion for concurrence in a Committee report a point of order was raised, to the effect:

that as certain proceedings in the committee were irregular, the house should refuse to entertain the report of the committee, but that it should be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.
On that occasion Mr. Speaker ruled:
-that the point of order was not well taken inasmuch as the alleged irregular proceeding complained of took place in the committee and the house is only seized of the proceedings of the committee from the report presented to the house. There is no reference in the report whatever to any question having been raised in the committee and, therefore, my ruling is that it is not competent for this house to go back of the report which is now in its possession.
I must make the same ruling in the present case.
Dealing with the third specific point, the form of the report, I might say that this was the aspect which gave me great difficulty, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned that he had little doubt that the form of the report was acceptable.
My own understanding is that the established form of a committee recommendation dealing with legislative proposals is that the government take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation for a specified purpose. The wording of this committee's recommendation is a departure from the established practice in that the words "take into consideration the advisability of" are not included.
Both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Peace River suggested that this should not be considered as a serious objection or an obstacle in that the words used were tantamount to the words normally used in a report from a committee. If indeed I felt that the omission of these words would result in the recommendation being interpreted as a direction rather than a mere recommendation, it is doubtful that the report could be accepted. On the other hand, I have some doubt as to the advisability of referring the report back to the committee for the sole purpose of effecting a purely formal modification.
At the same time I should caution hon. members that committee reports should be drafted according to procedurally acceptable forms. There are countless precedents to which hon. members could be referred in that regard. As I have indicated the form of the report should not and cannot, directly or by
7312	COMMONS DEBATES	March 31, 1969
Transport and Communications implication, direct the government to introduce or parliament to enact legislation. The accepted form of a committee's recommendation dealing with proposed legislation is "that the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing the necessary legislation."
I recognize the very valid point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by other hon. members, and it is my belief that the new rules have upgraded the committees. Perhaps we should depart from the long established procedures and allow committees to make reports which do not necessarily follow the rules which have been accepted, as far as their form is concerned. However, I would doubt very much that the Chair is empowered to accept these changes. That is the type of question, which in my view might well be considered by the Committee on Procedure. That committee might submit a report to the house indicating whether the form of committee reports should be changed to take into account a new status of the committees in the legislative process.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This having been said and with the reservations outlined the Chair is disposed to allow the question now to be put to the house.



CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle) moved: that the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it now being 4.25 and since there is the prospect of some debate on this matter I wonder if it would be agreeable to let it stand until tomorrow so that we might get on with the routine proceedings today.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable if the house leader will give his assurance that this matter will be brought forward for debate tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As you know, there is no way I could prevent its being brought forward tomorrow.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have been known to try.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Caoueiie: During the last three years, what was the average income of farmers (a) in Canada (b) in the Province of Quebec (c) in the federal constituency of Temiscamingue ?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned, the information requested is not available.


INDIANS-DETAILS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED BY SALLY ROBINSON
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Was Sally Robinson employed to conduct any surveys or studies relating to Native Indian people, especially on Vancouver Island?
2.	If so, what, in detail, were the terms of reference given to her on the terms of any contract under which she was employed and by whom was she employed?
3.	Between what dates was she so employed and how much money was she paid?
4.	Which communities did she visit in the course of the survey or study?


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The answer to the first part of the question is as follows: Sally Robinson was not at any time employed by the department. The answer to the second, third and fourth parts of the question is that the department has no information about the details of such a survey.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE NEWS BRIEFINGS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were groups of news media representatives at the Federal-Provincial Conference given private or "background" briefings by federal public servants and, if so (a) who authorized these briefings (b) how many such briefings occurred?
2.	In each case, which departments were involved and which officials?
3.	In each case, what was the specific purpose of the briefing?
March 31, 1969


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1, 2 and 3. During the Constitutional Conference, February 10-12, 1969, three background briefings were provided by federal officials for all news reporters accredited to the Conference. The briefings were authorized by the Prime Minister and their purpose was to provide answers to reporters' questions concerning positions taken by the Government of Canada at the Conference. Because of the nature of background briefings, it is not customary to identify Government spokesmen who take part.


MOUNTAINEER MOTEL COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. Woolliams: With reference to answers given to Question No. 1,271 (a) who are the officers of the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited (b) is this a private company and, if so, who are the main shareholders in the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited (c) what percentage of rent is charged against the gross receipts of the lessee by the Department in question and called for in the agreement between the Mountaineer Motel Company Limited and the said Department (d) does the agreement call for any other consideration other than a percentage of the gross receipts from the enterprise in question?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) President, Louis Biro; Vice-president, Alex Szakal; Secretary, Vencel Jakab. (b) Yes, Mountaineer Motel Company is a private company, limited to a maximum of 50 shareholders. As our lease is with the Company as a corporate entity rather than with the individual shareholders, we do not attempt to maintain a record of shareholders. We only require the names of the Company officers. Specific information on the Company Shareholders may be obtainable from the Registrar of Companies for the Province of Alberta, (c) As stated previously in the answer to Question No. 1271, lease agreements constitute a confidential landlord-tenant relationship. To divulge the terms of such an agreement without the express written consent of the lessee would be a breach of that confidence, (d) See answer to (c) above.


GRANTS FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Burton: For the fiscal year 1967-68, how many grants were made to plants in Saskatchewan under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives
Questions
Act (a) what is the name of each plant receiving a grant (b) what amount of grant was received by each plant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In fiscal year 1967-68, one grant was paid under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act to an applicant corporation from the Province of Saskatchewan, (a) Disclosure of an applicant's name is not permitted under the Act; (b) Disclosure of the amount of a grant paid to an applicant is not permitted under the Act.


SHOTGUN SHELLS COMPOSITION
Mr. Anderson: Has the Canadian Wildlife Service begun discussions with the manufacturers and distributors of shotgun shells in Canada with a view to substituting iron or nickel for the lead shot presently in use?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.
Canadian ammunition manufacturers belong to the Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) which has been cooperating in a study involving the testing of alternate materials for lead shot. Recent tests have shown that shot made from soft iron has the highest potential as the alternate material to lead. However, the cost of producing soft iron shot is very high and studies are underway to develop an economic process.


WORK POINT BARRACKS, ESQUIMALT, B.C.
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the 17-acre property described as Mac-Caulay Point, Work Point Barracks, Esquimalt, British Columbia been declared surplus to federal government requirements?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to turn this property over to the municipality of Esquimalt?
3.	Will the municipality be charged for this property and, if so, how much?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Defence Production):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	In accordance with the CADC priority purchase procedure the Corporation will be prepared to negotiate with the Municipality of Esquimalt for its acquisition of this property, if there is no interest in the land by Federal and Provincial Governments.
3.	It is the policy of the Corporation to consummate such priority sales of property at the fair market value established by independent appraisals.

March 31. 1969
Questions


SUBSCRIPTIONS TO HANSARD
Mr. Caouelie: In each province, how many persons at the present time receive Hansard (a) in English (b) in French?
tTranslation]


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Province	English	FrenchQuebec	1,250	1,992Ontario	6,456	533Manitoba	820	11Saskatchewan	688	6Alberta	1,092	8British Columbia	1,471	8New Brunswick	361	67Nova Scotia	658	5Prince Edward Island	133	-North West Territories	34	2Yukon Territory	26	-Newfoundland	214	-


UNCOLLECTABLE STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many student loans have been returned to the federal government from chartered banks as uncollectable from the inception of the Canada Student Loans Plan?
2.	For what amounts are these loans?
3.	Did the government use the services of a professional collection agency in attempting to collect those loans listed as uncollectable?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Under section 8 of the Canada Student Loans Act, a borrower's obligation is extinguished in the event of his death whereupon it becomes payable by the government on the borrower's behalf. Since the inception of the Plan to December 31, 1968, 246 claims were paid under section 8. These claims are not recoverable from the estates of deceased borrowers.
Under section 9 of the Act the government is required to reimburse a bank against loss incurred in connection with loans in default. Since inception to December 31, 1968, 861 claims were paid under this provision, including 321 in respect of costs not chargeable to the borrowers.
2.	Death Claims, $137,358; Costs Only Claims; $21,633; Principal Claims, $567,138; Total, $726,129.
3.	Where a claim is paid to a lender under section 9 in respect of principal and interest, the borrower's obligations are then owed to the Crown. Where the borrower's address

is known, the lender which made the loan continues to make collection efforts on behalf of the government. In cases where borrowers cannot be located by the lenders (some 250 cases), the accounts have been given to a professional collection agency on an experimental basis.


REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST POSTAL RATE INCREASE
Mr. Maiher: How many representations, opposing the "nonprofit publications" postal rate increase, have been received by the government from churches, associations, trade unions and co-ops?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, 164.


INTEREST ON PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the daily interest cost of the federal public debt?


Edgar John Benson: During the fiscal year 1967-68, the average daily interest cost of the federal public debt was $3,479,359.63.


INDIANS-GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER OF HOSTELS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Does the government propose to take over the complete management of all Indian residences and hostels across Canada outside of the Northwest Territories?
2.	If so, were the Indian tribes or bands affected thereby consulted on this drastic move?
3.	Will the result be that henceforth Indian children in residence, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic, will be denied being in hostels of their parents' religious faith?
4.	What provision is being made for the continuance in office of the staff members of these institutions following the takeover?
5.	Is it intended that such staff members shall be civil servants?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The answer to the first part of the question is that the employees of the Indian Student Residences are being brought under the Public Service Employment Act following instructions of Treasury Board in order to give employees collective bargaining
March 31, 1969

rights. The administrators and child care workers are being exempted from the Public Service Employment Act and will continue to be nominated by the various church denominations.
The answer to the second part is, since the hostels will continue to be administered in precisely the same manner as before, with the full support of the churches, and with no change in program or policy, there was no reason to raise the matter for discussion.
The answer to the third part is that the residences will continue to operate under denominational auspices. Parents will continue to have the right to have their children assigned to the residences on the basis of religious preferences.
The answer to the fourth part is that all employees who are on staff on March 31 are being offered continued employment.
The answer to the fifth part is: Yes, effective April 1, 1969.


BOARDING HERDS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Is it the federal government boarding herds for study purposes, on farms other than existing government experimental farms, and, if so, how many such herds have been placed with farmers or corporations (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario?
2.	How many head are being boarded in Quebec?
3.	How many head are being boarded in Ontario?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	(a) and (b) On occasions when accommodation at existing Experimental Farms has been insufficient to maintain populations required for the National Dairy Cattle Breeding Project, cattle have been placed with farmers in Quebec and Ontario. At present, cattle are being boarded on four private farms in Quebec.
2.	45 head.
3.	Nil.


WHEAT-NUMBER OF BUSHELS DRIED AT TERMINALS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many bushels of wheat are estimated to have been dried since the 7th day of February in each of the Prairie Provinces?
2.	What is the estimate of damp wheat dried in the terminals (a) Pacific Coast (b) elsewhere, during the said period?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the reply to the first part of this question is: Manitoba, 4,134,000 bushels; Sas-
Questions
katchewan, 9,738,000 bushels; Alberta, 4,624,000 bushels.
The answer to part 2(a) is 5,874,00 bushels and part (b) 11,441,000 bushels.


R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL AT OTTAWA AIRPORT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many members of the RCMP are employed on part-time or full-time duty at the Ottawa Airport?
2.	How many members of the RCMP are employed at the Ottawa Airport performing the duties of (a) giving out parking tickets (b) patrolling parking meter installation (c) impounding motor vehicles in the parking lot compound (d) ehauffeur-ing individuals (e) traffic control (f) security of aircraft (g) security of airport buildings (h) investigating complaints (i) highway safety (j) investigating crime?
3.	During what hours of the day are the duties in question carried out and what amount of time is spent performing each duty?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.	6 (One Sergeant and five Constables). This R.C.M.P. Police detachment is assisted in the performance of its assigned duties by members of the Corps of Commissioners. Duties are carried out in three 8-hour shift, daily.
2.	(a) (b) (c) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) and (j), 6. All detachment members, when on duty, are responsible for the performance of all these duties, (d) Nil.
3.	The Detachment, on a 24 hour a day basis, carry out their various duties, approximately, as follows: (a) 1 hour per day; (b) 2 hours per week; (c) 22 hours in 1968; (d) Nil; (e) 70 hours per week; (f) 170 hours per week; (g) 14 hours per week; (h) 4 hours per week; (i) 70 hours per week; (j) 2 hours per week.


BRIDGEWATER, N.S., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to build a new federal building In Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, has a site been selected and what is the location of the site?
3.	When is it anticipated that construction will be started on this project?
4.	What is the estimated cost of this building?


Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Negotiations are underway for the selection of a site.
3.	Unknown at this time.
4.	It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are called.

March 31, 1969
Questions


R.C.M.P. DISMISSALS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many members of the RCMP, by rank and years of service, have been dismissed from the service during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many offences can a member of the RCMP be charged with under RCMP regulations and how many members have been charged and/or convicted in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many complaints have been received from citizens against members of the RCMP for (a)
misconduct (b) improper police practice (c) excessive authoritarianism (d) unjust detention?
4.	Have there been any charges laid under (a) RCMP regulations (b) Criminal Code (c) other federal or provincial statutes against members of the RCMP in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, as a result of complaints?
5 How many members of the RCMP have been reprimanded during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


George James McIlraith: 1. Rank										Chief
Year	Constables	Corporals	Sergeants	Sub-Inspector Inspector Superintendent	1960	5	-	-	-	-	-1961	9	-	-	-	1	-1962	24	1	1	-	-	-1963	19	-	-	-	-	-1964	22	-	-	1	-	11965	20	-	-	-	-	-1966	16	1	1	-	-	-1967	25	1	-	-	-	-1968	25	-	-	-	-	-Years of service	Less than 1960	1961	1962	1963	1964 1965	1966	1967	19681	1	- -	4	-	-	-	12	1	1	4	-	4	3	8	93	2	4	6	5	1	6	8	64	2	6	1	1	4	1	3	35	1	2	3	2	5	1	-	16	1	-	2	-	1	1	17	3	2	-	-	2	28	3	1	1	1	-9	1	1	3	-	2	1	1	-	210	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	2	-11	-	1	1	-	-	1	1	-	-12	-	2	1	1	-	-	-	-	-13	-	-	1	1	2	1	1	-	-14	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	-	-15	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-16	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	1	-20	-	-	-	1	-	-22	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-23	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-28	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-32	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	2. Two types of offences under the provi-	under this Section. There are	approximatelysions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police	4,000 Commissioner's	Standing Orders and	Act, RSC 1959, Chapter 54: Section 25-	-Major	170	Regulations.	1960/61, 155;	1961/62, 118;service offences.	There are 16 such	offences	1962/63, 177; 1963/64,	131; 1964/65, 204; 1965/	listed under	this	section.	Section 26	-Minor	66, :	130; 1966/67,	137;	1967/68,	170.service offences.	A	violation of any	of the	3.	Information	requested not recorded.	Commissioner's Standing	Orders or	Regula-	4.	Information requested not	recorded.tions constitutes	a	Minor Service	Offence	5.	Information requested not	available.

March 31. 1969


INDIANS-REQUEST FOR TREATY RATIFICATION
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government give favourable consideration to placing before Parliament a Bill to confirm the terms of all Indian treaties made prior to Confederation and in particular the Jay Treaty?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am also answering this question on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The answer is as follows:
A general study of all Indian treaties is now being carried out and it would be premature to make any comment at this time. This matter was also discussed during the Indian Act consultation meetings and will be discussed at future meetings.
The government will do all it can to abide by the provisions of the treaties bearing in mind the terms of the Canadian law.
The Indian Claims Commission, when it is established, will provide the Indian people with a means to have their claims heard.
The question of the Jay Treaty is under active consideration by the responsible department of government. A decision will be reached soon.


TRACKED VEHICLES IMPORTS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many tracked vehicles of the snowmobile "Skidoo" type have been imported into Canada in each of the following years: 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	What is the amount of tariff charged on such vehicles and has there been any change in the tariff charge since 1964?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No statistics on the volume of snowmobile imports are available.
2. Tariff item 43868-1 provides for free entry under the British Preferential and Most-Favoured-Nation tariffs of snowmobiles equipped with tracks, runners, skis or combinations thereof, except snowmobiles equipped to perform special services or functions
1. Total cost to date (March 19, 1969) on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada Estimated cost to end of fiscal year 1968/69
Estimates for 1969/70
Questions
or snowmobiles designed to function primarily as tractors. This tariff item came into effect on February 2, 1967. However, duty was remitted on snowmobiles imported during the period November 1, 1966 to February 2, 1967. These measures were taken to give effect to a dutyfree arrangement with the United States, which grants free entry to Canadian snowmobiles.
Prior to February 2, 1967, snowmobiles were free of duty under the British Preferential Tariff but subject to a 17J per cent duty under the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff, pursuant to the provisions of tariff item 43803-1.


BLIND PERSONS ACT
Mr. Souiham: Is the government giving any consideration to amending the Blind Persons Act so that (a) all blind Canadians, from age 18, receive a universal allowance as compensation for their blindness and this allowance be administered and paid by the federal government (b) this allowance be exempt from Income Tax (c) this universal allowance not be considered as income in welfare computation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a), (b) (c) The government is presently reviewing all social welfare programs for which it has responsibility. In the course of this review attention will be given to the needs of the blind. When a decision is made the House will be informed in the usual way.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the total cost to date on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and what further costs are anticipated or expected?
2.	What are the names of the Commissioners and staff members and what amounts have been paid to each of them for (a) fees, emoluments or salaries and (b) expenses?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada as follows:


$1,039,995.65 48,530.74 625,600.00 $1,714,126.39 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
March 31. 1969
Questions
2. Names of Commissioners	Honoraria	Expenses	To March	19,	1969Mrs. Florence Bird, Chairman	$	37,787.50	$	4,455.65Mr. D. Gordon (Retired)	5,550.00	655.62Mr. J. Henripin	16,425.00	2,767.70Mr. J. Humphrey	11,925.00	2,185.31Mrs. L. Lange	25,350.00	11,978.25Miss J. Lapointe	18,600.00	3,690.75Miss E. G. MacGill	23,500.00	4,534.91Mrs. D. Ogilvie	24,450.00	4,660.55Total for Commissioners	$	163,587.50	$	34,928.74Names of Staff Members-Senior Officers	Salaries	Expenses	To March	15,	1969Miss M. Begin, Executive Secretary and	5,751.96Research Director	$	42,966.60	$	Miss D. H. B. Cadwell, Research Co-ordinator	22,868.42	1,060.54Miss M. Coupal, Assistant Secretary and	Legal Advisor	31,449.94	4,732.05Miss G. E. Maynard, Research Co-ordinator	15,058.30	2,448.67Miss A. Burke, Press Relations and Informa-	tion Officer	15,388.24	2,780.87Mrs. J. G. Ellichuk, Executive Assistant	10,500.00	-$	138,231.50	$	16,774.09Research Staff	Mrs. J. C. Desjardins, Research Assistant	$	9,416.57	$	1,707.08Miss M. F. Slack, Research Assistant	2,282.61	-Mrs. S. A. Khan, Research Assistant	2,472.79	-Mr. B. C. Keith, Research Assistant	2,011.91	-$	154,415.38	$	18,481.17Administrative Support Staff	(At Public Service Rates of Pay)	Classification Number of Employees	CR 3 1	$	305.82	CR 4 1	2,408.50	CR 6 1	2,194.64	CR 7 2	7,657.00	ST 4 2	4,299.09	ST 5 2	4,383.09	751.02ST 9 1	4,325.17	378.20TO 5 1	1,299.00	Total for Staff Members	$	181,284.69	$	19,610.39

March 31, 1969

Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many "Canadian Rangers" are there in Canada?
2.	How many Canadian Rangers (a) Officers (b) N.C.Os. (c) men, received Centennial Medals?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1. 1681.
2. See reply to your question 737, tabled in the House of Commons January 15, 1969, (Votes and Proceedings 71, page 590).


MUNICIPAL USE OF E.M.O.
Mr. Skoberg: What is the position of the Department of National Defence in the use of E.M.O. by municipal authorities or the use of federal monies allocated to the municipalities for E.M.O. as it concerns expenditures on filling job vacancies when a legal withdrawal of service has occurred in any labour dispute?


David Walter Groos: The
Department of National Defence, through the Canada Emergency Measures Organization, does not allocate federal monies to municipal-ties. Federal moneys are allocated and committed to the appropriate provincial authority on a reimbursement basis of moneys spent by provincial and municipal authorities on agreed civil emergency planning activities. Federal moneys subsequently allocated by provinces to municipalities may be used only to meet, among other civil emergency planning activities, 75 per cent of the salaries of those persons specifically employed in support of civil emergency planning projects as agreed each year between the Provincial Ministers responsible for civil emergency planning and the Minister of National Defence.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Badanai: 1.	May a newly-arrived immigrant, with a trade, join a Canadian trade union?
2.	Must he have experience in his work in Canada before he is eligible to become a member of a union?
3.	What action does the Department of Manpower and Immigration take to help the immigrant find employment in his trade?
Return tabled.
Questions


EXPENSES OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism and on what date will the Commission complete its work and what is the estimated final cost of the Commission?
2.	What has been the total in salary and expenses paid to the members of the Commission since its inception to date?
3.	How many individuals have been employed by the Commission, and of that number, what are the names, addresses and qualifications of those who have received in excess of $10,000 in salary and expenses and in each instance, what was the specific amount?
4.	Have any public relations or consultant firms been employed by the Commission and, if so, what are the names of the firms, what were the specific duties of each and how much has each received from the Commission for services rendered?
Return tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We on this side of the house were advised that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would be making a statement on motions. Did we get by motions without the minister making the statement or are we now going to revert to motions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would ask that the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions. I understand the statement must be made before tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the support price for manufacturing milk for the year commencing April 1, 1969 has been set at $4.85 per hundred pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat. This is the same level as that established on April 1, 1968.
As hon. members are aware, the returns received by manufacturing milk and cream shippers come mainly from the market price and partly from subsidy. The market price, in turn, is related to the support prices established by the Canadian Dairy Commission for the major dairy products'. The federal
March 31, 1969
7320	COMMONS
Support Price for Manufacturing Milk government of course cannot fix prices to be paid for milk and cream within a province, but the support price for milk is based on the calculated market value of milk in relation to product support prices under normally efficient operations.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is announcing today that its support price on skim milk powder will remain at 20 cents per pound and that on butter will continue at the 65 cent level set last September. This butter price is two cents higher than that in effect on April 1,	1968, with a corresponding
increase in the market value of milk and cream as compared to a year ago. To supplement the market value, and provide the $4.85 support level, the rate of direct subsidy for manufacturing milk and cream will be $1.25 per hundred pounds of milk, with an equivalent rate for cream.
The dairy stabilization program is based on the principle of providing an equitable return to efficient producers for the amount of manufacturing milk and cream required for dairy products for the Canadian market. This is the basis of the dairy products for the Canadian market. This is the basis of the Dairy Commission's subsidy quota system. There is, however, concern over the present volume of surplus products and indications of a further increase.
There is a serious surplus of skim milk powder. Butter production since last October has been 10 per cent above a year ago. In 1968 the Commission had to purchase eight million pounds of surplus cheddar cheese to support the market price on that product and British authorities are considering restraints on cheese imports into that country. These surpluses are occurring at a time when international prices for dairy products are seriously depressed as a result of world over-production.
Kepresentations have been made to the government by producer organizations for an increase in the milk support price for the coming year. I feel sure they will appreciate, however, that in light of the market situation any further increase in product prices at this time would not be warranted. However, the government will undertake to provide sufficient funds to ensure that any changes in producers' net incomes are not the result of a lower support level, but rather are because of inceases in the cost of moving surplus dairy products into export.


The cost of disposing of surpluses must be financed by the Canadian Dairy Commission out of the funds provided to it for subsidies. This is in accord with the policy, previously enunciated by the government and which is well understood by producers, and their representatives, that the cost of such disposal must be a charge against the industry.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
For this purpose the commission makes a holdback against subsidy payments. The present rate of holdback on milk is 21 cents per hundred pounds. Effective with deliveries on and after April 1 the commission will require an average holdback from milk subsidies of 29 cents.
The holdback on cream will continue for the present at the existing level of one cent per pound of butterfat. However, should the present trend of increasing supplies of butter-fat continue, an adjustment in the holdback on both cream and milk may be necessary. On the other hand, if the supply or the international market price situation for dairy products were to improve significantly, it could be possible that the Dairy Commission would be in a position to refund a portion of the holdback to producers.
Since the cost of disposal of excess production is a charge against producers which reduces their net returns, it is important to the position of the industry that every available means be used to ensure against unmanageable surpluses. We have already had some discussions with organizations on this subject and I have instructed the commission to pursue it actively with the organizations.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: The main feature of the announcement just made-in fact, I would say, almost its only feature-is the indication that the amount of subsidy paid to shippers of manufacturing milk is not to be changed. We gather, too, that producers face increased costs in connection with the export program. This leaves dairy farmers in the same position as they were in last year, but saddled with increased operating costs. In fact, their position is worse, because the extra holdback will result in less take-home pay. I should also like to point out that this being the last day of the dairy year the minister's announcement comes rather late to allow for any adjustment in the operations of those concerned.
March 31. 1969

Never in the history of farming have farmers had more reason for concern, and never has the government seemed to show less concern. Dairy farmers encounter the same difficulties as do other farmers. They suffer from lack of markets for their products. Selling is partly the job of the government. In spite of what we hear, dairy farmers also suffer from the failure of the government to check rising production costs.
There is certainly no lack of efficiency on the part of our farmers. No one can tell me farmers are not efficient, because I know better. In times like these, they have to be efficient in order to operate. The truth is that they have proven themselves to be more efficient than almost any other business or industry. One handicap is the lack of research into new methods of purchasing and packaging-something which the federal government could and should be doing.
It is obvious that the policy of the government has been to eliminate the small, and- in their language-the inefficient farmer. The government and its various spokesmen talk about uneconomic units. What right have they to judge a farmer's efficiency, from here on Parliament Hill? Is it not a farmer's right to adhere to his way of life whether or not the Department of Agriculture or the Dairy Commission, or the government feels his unit is uneconomic?
I might also ask: Who benefits from a farmer's efficiency? Certainly it is not the farmer himself. Yet there are people who feel he should be moved to our already overcrowded cities where he would risk becoming a real burden to taxpayers in general. We should remember that when we discuss the problems of dairy farmers we are also dealing with many related industries whose operations depend upon the prosperity of the dairy industry. I am amazed by the kind of remarks I hear about subsidies being paid to dairy farmers or, for that matter, to any farmers. When will people realize that if farmers do not get a reasonable return for their labour they must either get out of business or be subsidized. They do not like being in this position. They are forced into it by circumstances beyond their control. How else do people suppose that food remains cheaper in relation to income on this continent than anywhere in the world? If small farmers are phased out and corporations take over, food prices will skyrocket.
Small farmers are going out of business at an alarming rate today and few young men
Support Price for Manufacturing Milk are replacing them. Under the dairy policy for 1968-69 new farmers could not get a subsidy quota unless they bought one along with a herd. Few young men can afford to do this.
I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Is there anything wrong with mixed farming? Should a farmer not be able to start on a small scale and ship cream, which fits in with hog and poultry raising, and possibly with a beef and grain operation as well?
What about the position of fluid milk shippers operating on a small fluid quota? It is agreed that a dairyman must now get between $4 and $5 per hundredweight in order to operate. Today the minister quoted a price of $4.85. Many of these people are averaging less than $4 per hundredweight. They have huge sums invested and they produce high grade milk. Where do they turn? Not 'to shipping manufacturing milk; they cannot get a subsidy quota. What about fluid milk shippers who might be forced out of business when processing plants close down? Where can they turn?
Subsidies are paid to some fluid shippers- this surprised me when I heard it-on certain amounts over 125 per cent of fluid quota here in Ontario and in British Columbia. I realize that the milk is pooled, but this procedure was not spelled out in the dairy policy statement this year, or in the previous one, as far as I can recall. This is creating an acute problem in the minister's own area. Fluid shippers have large sums invested. How does the action now being taken fit in with the policy of eliminating small farmers? I am referring, now, not to small shippers but to the top producers.
Never before in history has there been such confusion and dissatisfaction among dairymen respecting subsidies. This is borne out by the great number of letters received by all hon. members who have dairymen in their constituencies. They have many causes for complaint. For example, a young dairyman just starting out shipped more than the minimum 420 pounds of butterfat. The head office of the plant concerned mistakenly submitted a figure below that amount and he was automatically phased out. No recourse was open to him even though the mistake was not his. This is not the fault of the Dairy Commission. They have always been most helpful and reasonable, Mr. Speaker. But, after all, the commission is responsible to the department.
March 31, 1969
7322	COMMONS DEBATES
Support Price for Manufacturing Milk
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I might mention that farmers, and especially dairy farmers who work long, hard hours every day of the year, are not a burden on the economy, but an asset. These are not people who should be robbed of their incentive and even of their way of life, then forced into overcrowded cities to start over again in a new, and, to them, strange and unsatisfactory environment.


Mr, A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: The
difference in actual support level, according to the minister's statement today, is not great. The statement recognizes many of the facts of life in the dairy industry of Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What really concerns me is that through the action of the Dairy Commission and the policy of the Department of Agriculture, coupled with what is happening in agriculture, we are in a period of transition in this industry. I do not suppose we can change that fact, but the important thing to me and to our party is that in this time of change the hardships on those producers who are being forced to accept change should be minimized.
What also concerns me is that in this type of change the greater part of the weight of the adjustment is falling on the small producer; it is falling on the individual in the dairy business who is least able to absorb it; it is falling on the individual who has the least resources and the least cushion. As the previous speaker said, we on our side of the house receive letters from people with small herds who are being threatened with closing up. The minimum amount of income they are obtaining from their dairy herds, which is absolutely essential to the maintenance of their families and the maintenance of their livelihood, is going to literally disappear.
The Dairy Commission is in the forefront of operating a supply-management program in this country by virtue of subsidies and the administration of the money it receives through the producer. I say to the minister that if in the first nationwide experience with this type of program we find the burden falls more heavily on certain segments of the industry or certain parts of Canada, the program will fall into disrepute. The Saskatchewan department of agriculture, in its submission to the Canadian Agricultural Congress, complained that the Dairy Commission was not recognizing the fact that the small-scale cream producer, with little alternative use for 
the few resources he devotes to dairying, is really a low-cost cream producer. Saskatchewan said that the commission has not recognized this important point and has ruled out the low-volume cream shipper on the assumption that he is inefficient and not worthy of public support.
This is a pretty serious statement, coming from a department of agriculture of one of our provinces. They went on to once again make the point that while many small producers in Saskatchewan have lost their quotas, these have been re-allocated to producers in other provinces who are producing manufacturing milk, thus adding to the already huge surplus in this area. They they said:
We believe it is most unfortunate when policy gives producers of a product in one region of Canada an advantage over producers of the same product in another region and the advantage is related simply to differences in organization of the enterprise. In this instance, the policy discourages the production of cream in favour of manufacturing milk when the latter is by far the greatest surplus problem.
These are pretty serious allegations. I do not want particularly to associate myself with a regional argument, but I do say that a great deal more concern has to be shown for the small producer than has been shown up to now. More flexibility in this period of adjustment has to be shown than has been shown up to now. When administering a nationwide policy that affects the very existence and livelihood of people, you cannot use a strait-jacket. The department and the commission have to take into consideration what they are doing to the individual living on the farm and whose livelihood is at stake. From my information and observation, I am not sure they are doing it. I urge, therefore, that this problem be given very careful consideration.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, listening to the minister earlier, I was looking for an opportunity to congratulate him and it has presented itself because he announced today his dairy policy which was not to be announced before early April.
I must congratulate him for this early announcement because the farmers, particularly those in my area feared that once again this year that statement was going to be delayed which fortunately has not been the case.
March 31, 1969

On the other hand, I think that many will be surprised because they expected an increase in the subsidies but the department decided not to grant any. It certainly has its reasons for doing so, because if we consider the situation as a whole, we notice that in the last few years due to livestock diseases, in Quebec in particular-indeed my knowledge extends mainly to the Quebec dairy industry-and because also of the decrease in milk production due to bad weather, we have not enjoyed our usual prosperity.
We have produced about 18,350 million pounds of milk a year for the past two or three years. But last year, our dairy output increased by 1 per cent and, as the farmers who had to slaughter their cattle get back on the market, we expect a new increase of 1 to 1J per cent.
In my opinion, those responsible for the Canadian Dairy Commission will have a lot to do. I think their problems are not over. I must congratulate these responsible people and in particular two of them, Messrs. Williams and Thibodeau, with whom we communicate often by letters or otherwise. They do their best but I think that difficulties do not occur at that level; in our areas, they are probably due to a poor distribution of the subsidies.
As was mentioned by hon. members who spoke before me, we tend increasingly to encourage the large producer, the farm industrialist, and we neglect those who tomorrow will enable agriculture to make progress.
When I refer to the small producer, I think of two kinds of producers. The small producer who is starting out, the young one, and the one who had bad luck in previous years, and is getting back to a normal production.
Unless the Commission or the department make an effort in 1969 to give greater encouragement to our small producers, I am afraid we will miss the boat. In our areas especially, there is another problem: a national subsidy is used as a basis instead of a regional one. Indeed, as long as there is a national subsidy, the problem will not be solved in my area.
Even if $1.25 was granted, the price the processor pays could not be controlled. If the processor in Quebec pays 20 or 250. more than the processor in Ontario, he is being treated unfairly.
In short, I merely point out the situation to the minister. As long as subsidies are not regional, there will be injustice.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the ministers' who are involved, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister the following question. In view of the impending report of the textile council of the United Kingdom in which it is recommended that Canadian textiles brought into the United Kingdom be subject to a 15 per cent tariff, will the government make strong representations to the government of the United Kingdom pointing out the serious effect this will have on our textile industry in Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will certainly be glad to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, according to the roster, should be here today and who was here earlier.
Here he comes.
I want to ask the minister to inform the house as to whether the Canadian armament research and development section of the Defence Research Board has been and is now engaged in research in connection with the U.S. anti-missile system and, if so, under what arrangements, agreement or agreements this research is being done in Canada.


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: The hon. member gave me notice of this question, otherwise I might have been tempted to turn it over to my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. But since there is an element of external affairs involved, I will undertake to answer it.
Research teams from Canada's Defence Research Board and the U.S. department of defence advanced research projects agency

March 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry joined forces in 1958 to carry out a lone-term program of re-entry phenomena studies at upper levels of the earth's atmosphere, under an informal agreement between the heads of the two agencies, because of the proficiency and the unique facilities then developed at the Canadian armament research and development establishment. The results of the work have been equally available to Canada and to the United States. I might mention that the details were made public in October, 1968, in the Defence Research Board presentation to the Committee on Science Policy of the other place, and it was also reported in the annual reports of the Defence Research Board which were classified until 1966, but which since then have been unclassified.
I should add that the Canadian armament research and development establishment at Valeartier has not participated in any program for the interception of ballistic missiles.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house, whether, as a result of the research done in Canada, the Canadian authorities and the government were informed of the range of the Spartan anti-ballistic missile and the range of the Sprint antiballistic missile in order that this government be made aware of the facts concerning the present A.B.M. system which has been proposed by the President of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand that the research had to do with the re-entry phenomenon of the missiles which would be attacking Canada or the United States, and that it was concerned only with their paths and the problems of intercepting them, not with the development of the anti-ballistic missiles themselves.



ACTIVITIES OF U.S.S.R. NAVAL UNITS IN NORTH ATLANTIC

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether Canada was informed by the U.S.S.R. of the purposes of the reportedly extensive exercise of some sort, by Russian naval units, that is taking place in the north Atlantic. If this is not the case, has the government been kept informed by any of its

allies of the purpose of these movements, as well as they can be learned, and are these units of the Russian navy under surveillance by Canadian forces?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take notice of the question and refer it to the Minister of National Defence.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether Air Canada has advised him of its intention to hire 150 parttime employees, that is 50 persons at each of its airports in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the question could be put on the order paper or taken up on adjournment this evening or tomorrow.


Roland Godin: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and results partially from his visit in Hamilton where, I understand, he spent some 37 minutes reviewing some 328 acres of urban renewal, costing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My question is: Is the
minister now prepared to give the guidelines regarding public housing which he had indicated to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants would be forthcoming? I believe the hon. member asked on March 25 whether this information would be given in writing and the minister said that it would be in the hands of the house within two or three days.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not recall saying that this information would be in the hands of the house within two or three days. It is in the course of
March 31, 1989

preparation and I hope will be available in due course.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I misled the minister but according to Hansard of March 25, in answer to the question of the hon. member-if Your Honour will allow me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my hope that we will not go into this. It is rather bad practice to read from Hansard a question that has been asked. Perhaps the minister might be given an opportunity to give a supplementary answer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister inform us whether it is his intention now to visit all the urban renewal areas in Canada before he comes to a decision on the plans of the government for urban renewal schemes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Regrettably I will not be able to visit them all, but I do hope to visit the eight or ten most urgent projects, to see exactly what is involved, in order to reach some judgment in respect of the total program so that, having taken a decision in respect of one or two, the precedent will hold in respect of the others that are outstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we have reached the period which is normally assigned to private members business. I wonder what the desire of the house is in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if there would be a disposition on the part of hon. members generally, and particularly the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who would have had an opportunity today to speak in the private member's hour, to suspend the private members business and to continue with routine proceedings.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that we do not waive private members hour, because under private members business for today is notices of motions, and today is the fortieth and last day for most of them to be discussed. If we waive private members business today I will lose my place and my right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business.
Inquiries of the Ministry PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack), public buildings-Bath-Millhaven federal prison complex; the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), grain- allocation of box cars-discrimination against wheat pools; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), industry-inquiry as to concentration of ownership and control.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

It being live 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.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is to ask the house leader whether he intends, as I understand he agreed with the house leaders of the other parties, to ask the house for permission to move an order relative to the transport committee, giving that committee power to call witnesses in regard to a certain matter. I understand the house leader agreed to ask permission to move this order, and I ask him whether he intends to do so now or some time later this day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, some considerable time ago I delivered copies of the order to the house leaders opposite with the suggestion that they confer and advise me whether the order was agreeable to them. I have not heard from them yet. I do not have a copy of the order with me today, and I should like to hear from all house leaders whether they are agreeable before I take further action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I told the minister Saturday night that it was acceptable.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was told a lot of things on Saturday night, but I would sooner wait till I hear from all house leaders.
March 31. 1969

Animal Treatment Study



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Harold Edward Winch: That, in the opinion of this house, the following matters should be referred to a standing committee, designated by the Prime Minister, with authority to call for persons and papers and report its deliberations with recommendations (a) the use of animals for medical research purposes, their care and utilization, and procedures for government licensing and inspection of, and control over, all premises using animals for laboratory research or medical training (b) the treatment of animals as pets and, as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in a humane manner (c) the most humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals (d) consideration of the entire Canadian picture relative to the maintenance of fish, bird and animal wildlife and the regulations required for conservation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to invite all hon. members of the house to support motion No. 29 standing in my name on today's order paper. I do not feel it necessary to speak at great length on this motion because it is written in a way that is selfexplanatory. However, I should like to say that I moved a somewhat similar motion in this house on December 20, 1967. On that occasion every hon. member who rose in his place to speak to the motion completely agreed in principle with it, but raised two objections to it. This was the reason it was talked out on that occasion.
The first objection raised was to the effect I had recommended that all matters affecting the trapping and killing of fur-bearing animals, the treatment of animals, cruelty to animals, their use in research and also the entire question of the conservation of the wildlife of our country be referred to the agricultural committee for study and consideration, the hearing of witnesses and the making of recommendations to this House of Commons. Objection was taken to my suggestion that the matter be referred to the agricultural committee. I did this because during my intensive study of these matters over the years I had found, almost without exception, that every country of the world that recommended studies of this nature always referred the question to their agricultural committee.


In addition, any legislation dealing with the matter was always placed under the jurisdiction of the department of agriculture. Therefore, this is my reason for phrasing my motion today in this way, hon. members having failed to pass my motion on the previous occasion. My motion today does not name any committee. I have done what I anticipate will be agreeable to hon. members, in particular to hon. members on the government side, namely asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), should the motion carry, to designate to which committee the matter should be referred.
The other objection that was raised in 1967 was this. I made reference on that occasion to the seal kill that takes place every year in this country, and objection was raised that the matter of seal killing was one for the Department of Fisheries, not the Department of Agriculture. As a result of that little excuse, my motion was not accepted.
This time I have also met that objection. I have not mentioned the seal hunt at all. This is included in the entire study of the trapping and killing of fur-bearing animals. In view of the fact that I moved the motion on December 20, 1967 and everybody endorsed it in principle, and since I have now removed those picayune objections which were taken, I trust hon. members will consider the matter to be strictly one of the principle and will endorse my motion as it stands.
There are two main principles of major importance here, in my estimation. It is rather remarkable that we in this country, who regard ourselves as civilized and humane to animals, have never made a study of cruelty to animals. We have never made a study of the use of animals in scientific and medical laboratories. Many members have read the evidence that has been given over the years, particularly the last five years, such as the evidence that was placed before the Lyttleton royal commission in the United Kingdom as well as a congressional study that was made in the United States. Sworn evidence given before those commissions amply demonstrates a situation that is in need of correction.
I am sure we can take it for granted there is not much difference between the use of animals in Canada for scientific and medical research and use of animals for this purpose in other countries of the world, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. Surely, this is a matter in which we should be interested, especially when I give the house instances of cruelty, and I shall give
March 31. 1969	COMMONS
but a few. For example, dogs are being placed in small cages for seven years without being let out in order to study certain reactions. There is sworn evidence and photographs describing dogs that for 24 hours a day for a period of months were given intermittent electric shocks so as to bring them to a state of exhaustion, hysteria and terror in order to study them. Sworn evidence was given before a commission that dogs-400 in one instance-had all their legs smashed in a press and died 24 hours later, no anaesthetic having been administered.
I use those illustrations of what has being going on to indicate not only that we have made no study in Canada in this regard but that we do not have what every civilized country of the world has, namely legislation regulating the licensing of organizations or institutions that require to use animals for medical and scientific research. Such legislation gives the right of entry to such institutions to ascertain what is going on and to ensure there is no unnecessary abuse of or cruelty to animals, with power to enforce regulations.
I am sure all hon. members who have read my motion realize I am not being dogmatic. I have made no recommendations. Because of the importance of the matter I have merely asked that it be referred to a committee, to be designated by the Prime Minister, for study and consideration, for the hearing of representations by all who are interested, in order to decide whether or not to make specific recommendations to the House of Commons and to the government of this country. Surely, such a suggestion is a reasonable one.
That is all I am going to say on this particular phase of the motion, but there is another phase in which I am keenly interested. I refer to the conservation of our wildlife, whether animal, bird or fish. There is no international boundary when it comes to animal, bird and fish conservation on this continent. I have been interested in this subject for many years. I had visited interested organizations in this country, the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I was somewhat amazed to find that until two years ago the government of the United States had no interest in conservation. In the fall of 1967 they introduced the endangered wildlife research program. With the exception of the O ID.A. in Canada, the moves on the prairies and the latest move in British Columbia to set aside thousands of acres, this

DEBATES	7327
Animal Treatment Study country has not shown an interest in the conservation of wild life. This move was brought about in British Columbia because several species of the bighorn sheep were practically extinct.
Scientific organizations interested in this matter have stated that in the past 150 years, 60 species of animals and birds1 have been completely exterminated on this continent. The latest scientific information I have been able to obtain states that since the turn of this century 23 species of birds have disappeared in this country and the northern part of the United States. They are gone; nothing can be done about that now. There is evidence available to show that birds and animals, not only in my province of British Columbia but other parts of Canada now face extinction unless something is done about the situation.
I have already mentioned two species of the bighorn sheep in British Columbia. Grizzly bears are now becoming very scarce in this country. According to a wildlife survey recently completed, there are approximately 12,000 polar bears left in the world. These are being killed at the rate of 1,200 a year.
I ask hon. members to take an interest in this most vital matter and refer it to a committee for study. This committee should hear representations and bring in recommendations as a result of their accumulated knowledge. The United States has finally established the endangered wildlife research program. It is just as essential that there should no longer be a delay in Canada taking action on this matter.
I was raised by parents who did not believe in killing. I have never shot at a bird or animal in my life, nor at a roan. I was taught that one should only kill in self-defence or for food requirements. At the same time, I have never been narrow minded on the question of sportsmanship and killing of birds and animals. How they call it sportsmanship, I do not know, but I am not narrow minded. As a matter of fact, I am an honorary member of a rod and gun club in Vancouver-. The reason I am a member is because of their interest in conservation. This organization recognizes that we have the responsibility of seeing that the wonderful wild life in this beautiful country continues to exist. Those who come after us should also be able to enjoy the wildlife in this country.
It is not often that I quote from Reader's Digest. However, when reading this magazine last night, I came across a fine article which
March 31, 1969

Animal Treatment Study was condensed from National Wildlife, the title of which is "From the Brink of Extinction". In this article, the director of the National Wildlife Research program makes reference to a letter received from a boy. 1 quote:
"Not always those you'd expect-"
This refers to people writing letters.
"The majority of support comes not from the birdwatcher, camper, fisherman, hunter, but from people in cities." He handed me a typical letter. It was from Harlem, and the first sentence read: "I may never see a whooping crane, or any wild thing, but I hope you save them. I want to know they are there." So do millions of other people who look with concern as species after species, each a part of the miracle of life on earth, is threatened with extinction.
I ask the support of hon. members to refer these matters of vital concern to a committee of the House of Commons for study, consideration and recommendation.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member opposite that one of the paramount concerns of all politicians is the possibility of becoming extinct. Although some people might treat this subject in a light way, it deserves1 to be treated seriously.
I rise to participate in this debate for several reasons. I wish to compliment the hon. member opposite in whose name today's private members' notice of motion stands. He is not the only member who has serious concern about what can, and sometimes does, happen to animals.
This notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, has four parts. I propose to address myself to each in turn. Before doing so, I wish to draw the attention of this house to a bill bearing on this subject which was given first reading December 19 last, Bill C-150 an act to amend the Criminal Code. This motion today stands under the date of September 18, just over three months prior to the introduction of Bill C-150.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
By the way, I understand that Bill C-150 has just completed clause by clause study in the Justice Committee of this house. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-150 covers many of the very concerns which are paramount in this motion, especially in section (c). Since there exists considerable evidence to suggest to hon. members that Bill C-150 will in fact become the law of the land in the near future I wish to take the liberty to remind

the house once more just what clause 23 of Bill C-150 does state. Then, its bearing on this motion may be fully appreciated.
The explanatory note to clause 23 reads:
The proposed subsection (3) would provide that evidence of failure to exercise reasonable care and supervision of an animal or bird resulting in pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the commission of an offence-
The amendment would also provide for an order prohibiting a person convicted on two or more occasions under subsection (1) from owning or having custody or control of a domestic animal or bird for a period of up to two years.
I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that I understand the Justice Committee has made an amendment to the bill, broadening its terms of reference. This provision with no longer be restricted to domestic animals but will cover wildlife and game birds as well.


Harold Edward Winch: But it does not cover research animals.


Murray Arndell McBride: I will come to that in a moment. Clause 23 refers to:
*-evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury-
Obviously, this means animals that are kept domestically, and does include animals that are kept for research, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has just pointed out.
Now, coming to paragraph (a) in the notice of motion, I wish to point out it is obvious that animals must be used for medical research purposes. This is self-evident to all hon. members. The point is a very simple one, that all reasonable care should be taken to prevent, to as large a degree as possible, unnecessary suffering of research animals. However, it must be noted that the first aim of research is to prevent human suffering. The second aim of research is to realize reliable data for a high quality of research. The third aim of research is to do scientific investigation which does result in high quality and reliable data, with the highest possible degree of efficiency. By efficiency, I mean the least expenditure of moneys and the least possible unnecessary suffering of the animals concerned. I propose to refer to paragraph (a) again in my concluding remarks, so I will now proceed to paragraph (b) which reads:
-the treatment of animals as pets and, as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those
March 31, 1969	COMMONS
abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in a humane manner-
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, the bulk of this paragraph is covered in Bill C-150. In fact, Bill C-150 is an improvement on paragraph (b) because although the original draft referred only to domestic animals and birds it has now been broadened to include all types of animals.
Paragraph (c) refers to:
-the most humane method of trapping fur bearing animals-
This raises a very difficult problem.
How can one raise animals and live on the proceeds from the sale of their skin and fur, yet at the same time to be considered by society as a humane person? It seems to me that so long as society lives on animal meat, animal skins and animal products we are faced with a very serious problem. The hon. member for Vancouver East has already referred to the seal hunt, which has been much in the news. Most of us know fur farmers. Indeed, there are some very successful ones in my constituency.
I would go one step further and draw attention to the fact that animals kept for research are really very little different from any type of domestic livestock because they are all maintained in order to realize a profit to their owners. Indeed, livestock and poultry maintenance involved certain practices which are not so much inhumane as they are part of life's realities.
I refer to the need for slaughter houses, if we are to be carnivores, to the need to perform certain procedures on animals which might be deemed by some to be inhumane but which are accepted by the agricultural industry as necessary to good livestock management. For example, dairy cows throughout Canada are tied into stalls in late October or early November and never released until April or May. During that time they are not allowed to take two steps forwards or backwards. Hackney horses have their tails held in special holding devices that eventually distort and bend the backbone upwards at the base of the tail to provide for a so-called more flowing beauty, but certainly with no little agony to the animal at some point along the way.
You, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members who are familiar with the agricultural industry, will be aware that young calves, have caustic soda applied to their horn buds or, if not, are dehorned with saws or large levered 29180-464J
DEBATES	7329
Animal Treatment Study cutters, which is certainly a painful procedure. I have seen this done both ways and it is indeed painful. Lambs' tails are docked. Their tails are simply cut off, as are the tails of many horses, in both instances without benefit of anaesthesia. Boar piglets, bull calves, ram lambs and male colts are castrated without benefit of any type of anaesthetic, and all as a necessary part of livestock management.
I therefore, submit that it is necessary to keep all of this in focus when we discuss a motion such as the one now before us, because it is easy to get into the position of saying that people exist to serve animals. I hope I do not sound too callous when I state very firmly that in my opinion the precise opposite is true, that animals exist to serve people.
Being aware that other hon. members wish to participate in this debate this afternoon I shall sum up my remarks at this point. I conclude by saying that I have great sympathy for animals. We have a dog at our house called Zippy, that is almost a member of the family and sometimes rates much higher than I do. However, Mr. Speaker, let us keep first things first. People are more important than animals. We must protect research animals, that is true; but we must use them to help make people well, not idolize or worship them. Too often, dogs are more protected than refugees and other casualties of war.
I must confess very bluntly that I am more concerned about child brutality, some startling examples of which have recently come to public view, than I am about the agonies of dogs, cats, monkies, guinea pigs and spruce bud worms, the latter being a subject upon which I was permitted to work for a whole summer one time in Northern Ontario. I feel that no one can quarrel with the final section of this notice of motion. I felt the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), made a very good point when he listed some of the species of animals about which he was concerned such as bighorns, grizzly bears and so on. I feel all of us must certainly take steps to support the action taken by governments, individuals or voluntary organizations in this regard. Just as we must be against pollution or anything else that diminishes the features of the world in which we live, so also we must be for conservation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think he
March 31, 1969

Animal Treatment Study has placed before us a motion which is very important though very wide in scape. It is sort of an omnibus motion which involves many areas of concern and therefore will be of much interest to many members.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a few words on that notice of motion.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for taking the defence of animals, which, incidentally are not represented directly in the house. However, a few thoughts come to my mind on that subject.
It is very praiseworthy to care a lot for animals. Indeed, everybody likes animals. If certain individuals are led to mistreat animals, we can conclude that they are abnormal, for an instinction feeling leads man to like them.
But we should not make a major discussion out of the question. It seems to me it would be displacing the human values, for if life was made so that animals can serve man, be it in the field of food, or research, or sports, it follows that if we push the protection of animals too far, we would have to give up eating meat, hunting or fishing, as well as pursuing scientific research.
I do not think that conscientious scientists, hunters or consumers enjoy ill-treating animals for the fun of it. There may be cases of cruelty but they are already provided for in the law.
But when such a question is raised, I think of how little importance we attach sometimes to this superior animal which is man himself, especially at a time when the house is considering the famous omnibus bill which has for object to legalize killing the foetus. In my opinion, it is a confusion of values.
How is it that so little respect is shown for the embryo of the human being, and so great a concern for the protection of animals?
The comparison perhaps is odious, but still these are facts. Is it possible that we have no scruples about passing a legislation which will make abortion legal while at the same time we are discussing the protection of animals?
I think it is high time that we awake to the necessity of protecting the most perfect animal of all creation, which is man. He must be ensured the respect which is owed to every human being because of his intelligence
IMr. McBride.]

as well as1 because of his body. I believe proper legislation to ensure protection to this kind of animal, man, has not yet been passed.
Before discussing further this legislation which we are asked to pass, I think we should tarry a little to consider the real problem of the human animal. This is what strikes me in this advice of motion, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it would be a bad thing to stop a moment and think this over. We should not go too far. We all agree that animals have to be protected adequately, as is proposed in the notice of motion; we should not think, however, as they do in India, that some cows are sacred. We know what was the result there of such a belief.
We have to follow the scale of values set by God. However, animals which are there to serve man, must be given some measure of respect. But, most important of all, the human being has to be respected.
I think there would be no reason not to endorse that legislation, but I simply want to emphasize the fact that we have every reason to protect the human being.
I wish to point out in particular the relation between this bill and the other one on abortion, which, as far as I am concerned, pays no attention to the human being and to life.
We do not object to that motion, but I think every effort should be made to protect the most perfect animal of the whole created world, that is, man.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) envisages the establishment of one of the standing committees of the House of Commons as a committee to inquire into practically every facet of the treatment of animals in Canada, including not only our domestic animals and household pets but also wild animals, birds and fish. It might be well to include the much maligned creature homo sapiens.


Harold Edward Winch: He can look after himself; the animals cannot.


Maurice Brydon Foster: As the hon. member has suggested, when he orginally introduced this motion in 1966 or 1967 there was some discussion concerning the committee to which this matter should be referred. Should it be the Committee on Agriculture? Should it be the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry? Should it be the Committee on Justice and Legal
March 31, 1969	COMMONS
Affairs or should it be' the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs?
So far as our domestic food producing animals are concerned, the Committee on Agriculture would be ideal. But when we think of fish, seals and the wild animals of our forests, we naturally think of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. With regard to research animals for laboratories and medical student training as well as household pets, it would seem that this aspect could well be handled by the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee.
As the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) has already mentioned, when we think of the cruelty to animals aspect of this motion and the Criminal Code application, the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs may well appear to be the best standing committee.
I believe the subject of humane treatment of animals is of increasing concern to more Canadians. I suppose this is natural since our country has moved from a pioneer frontier society, first to an agricultural society and, finally to an urban society. Indeed, I heard recently that within a very few years some 80 per cent of our population will be living in an urban type society. At the same time, the number of fishermen and trappers decreases every year in Canada because this is a very difficult occupation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The great interest taken in the seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a good example of the amount of public interest which can be generated in this subject by extensive publicity in the press and television. I visited the Gulf of St. Lawrence a couple of weeks ago with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to view the over-all scene and we saw a good example of what happens there each year. The activities in the gulf are only a relatively small part of the total seal hunt, much of which takes place in the area known as "The Font", nearer Newfoundland and Labrador. We found the regulations established by the Department of Fisheries were being followed as closely as- humanly possible by the seal hunters. If we relate seal hunting standards to accepted standards when killing other kinds of fur-bearing or food-producing animals, the techniques are humane. Comparable measures are used in slaughter houses, and to kill other fur-bearing animals across our land. The animal is stunned to unconsciousness, then bled so that it never regains consciousness. But can we really justify the seal
DEBATES	7331
Animal Treatment Study hunt because it compares favourably in certain respects with techniques used to slaughter food-producing animals?
The age of electronics changes all this. When the slaughter of young seals is shown in the nation's living rooms on colour television right after dinner, the spectacle appears repulsive. Is it all the fault of the press? Should we ban the press? A free press is the cornerstone of our democratic process in Canada. One of my hon. friends suggests we use the same techniques on the press as on the seals, but I do not think that would be practicable, Mr. Speaker.
One of our problems is that society in Canada is changing. The main question the hon. member's proposed committee would have to study is this: what are our accepted norms of humane treatment of animals in Canada in 1969? Where do we draw the line between what is acceptable to the urbane, sophisticated city-dweller and the trapper in the northern regions of Canada or the seal hunter on "The Front" off the coast of Newfoundland?
With regard to the treatment of pets* and animals used for research, much of the work which the motion envisages a committee might do has already been carried out by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. This council was established in January, 1968 in line with a recommendation of a report on the care of animals used for experiments drawn up by a special committee of the National Research Council. The report was published in June of 1966 and the Canadian Council on Animal Care is attempting to implement the recommendations contained in the National Research Council report. The council is made up of representatives from the Association of Universities' and Colleges of Canada, the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges and of the granting bodies supporting research which utilizes animals, as well as government departments and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. I believe these people are well qualified to look into questions which the hon. member's motion suggests are suitable subject for inquiry by a committee of the House of Commons.
The objective of the Canadian Council on Animal Care has been to develop guiding principles for the care of animals used in experiments. I have in my hand a publication put out by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, entitled "Care of Experimental Animals, A guide for Canada". In addition to setting out standards of housing and care for animals
7332	COMMONS
Animal Treatment Study used in experiments it establishes responsibility for their proper care and treatment. One need only open this booklet to realize that a great deal of work in this area has already been done. Under the heading "A Philosophy for the Care and Use of Experimental Animals" the three items listed are: (1) to provide humane care and treatment; (2) to minimize pain and discomfort; (3) to avoid unnecessary abuse. The book gives us a complete outline of the type of environment in which the animals should be housed and cared for, noting such factors as temperature, humidity, ventilation, light, noise, odour control, type of structure, walls, floor and windows, ceiling and corridors, which are necessary to ensure proper care and treatment of laboratory animals.
Under "General Husbandry" we read about the type of identification, record-keeping and caging which are recommended for the general wellbeing of the animals kept. Attention is paid to food and water, varmint control, waste disposal and disease control, safety procedures, anaesthesia and euthenasia. There is also a general outline of procurement and transportation procedures, together with an outline for responsibility for animal care and notes on the responsibilities of animal attendants, technicians, directors and investigators. I believe this booklet is a complete though concise outline dealing with many factors Which relate to the care and control of laboratory animals.
In January of this year, assessment panels were appointed by the council and began an inspection of animal facilities and procedures at universities across Canada. Every university in Canada using animals for experiments is being visited by a team of three to five individuals experienced in animal care and experimentation. Membership of these panels includes representatives from the technical advisory committee of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. I am told that in addition to their concern with animal care facilities these panels review the safeguards attached to animal experimentation so as to ensure that humane and ethical treatment of experimental animals is enforced and that proper use is made of our animal resources.
Some of the matters which the hon. member suggests should be reviewed by a House of Commons standing committee are really the responsibility of the provinces. For instance, the province of Ontario has recently Introduced a very controversial bill, number

DEBATES	March 31, 1369
73, concerned with the procuring of laboratory animals from the municipal and S.P.C.A. dog pounds. Other provinces, namely Saskatchewan in 1953 and Alberta in 1966, have passed laws concerning pound procurement of unclaimed stray dogs. These provincial laws fulfill the recommendations of the report of the special N.R.C. committee on the care of experimental animals.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Thus, for a standing committee of the House of Commons to study this matter might draw attention to the problem in other provinces, but the committee would be spending time studying matters which are essentially of provincial concern. I would, therefore, suggest that some of the subject matter of this motion could be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons. Some of it is within provincial jurisdiction, and some of these items have already been studied and reported on by competent investigatory groups.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words on this motion. Like a great many hon. members, I have been interested in this matter for a number of years. One of the main features of the motion is that there should be a national study by a House of Commons committee on the general well-being of animals. Because time is short, I shall deal with only that section of the motion which has received a good deal of attention from the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).
The hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) referred to the fact that in his opinion this problem would be adequately covered by the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I do not believe this is so. The difficulty with respect to experimental animals is not that there are not very good regulations put out by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, to which the hon. member for Algoma referred, but that in spite of their having laid out all these good regulations and ideas there is no legislation in Canada to enforce such regulations and standards.
In my opinion it does not help to shelter behind the jurisidiction of the provinces. If there is a Canadian Council on Animal Care, there ought to be Canada-wide legislation to enforce its standards with regard to animal welfare, animal well-being and the care of research animals. There ought to be, as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) pointed out, legislation to
March 31, 1963

deal with the licensing of premises used in this connection, the entry of inspectors, and power to enforce regulations in general. No matter how well they may be operating, there is no legislation under which the Canadian Council on Animal Care works. This is the point that the hon. member for Vancouver East was making.
The hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew referred to Bill C-150, which deals basically with pet animals, and said that this legislation has been widened. The hon. member should have referred to another bill, because then I think his comments would have been more penetrating. I refer to Bill C-44, which was introduced this session by one of the hon. member's colleagues on that side of the house, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos). The description of that bill is as follows:
An act to provide for the humane treatment of vertebrate animals used in scientific and industrial experiments, tests or training by recipients of grants from the government of Canada, by agencies of the government of Canada and by persons manufacturing pharmaceutical or biochemical products for sale to the government of Canada or to any of its agencies.
That is a strictly federal bill. Unfortunately, because it is a private members' bill and because it was not lucky in the draw, it will not be discussed this session. But I think that bill is very much to the point. Consequently, I am more than ever convinced that we should not rest until this whole matter has been studied by a House of Commons committee. Whether it be the agricultural committee or another committee is not important at this stage. The important thing is to recognize the necessity of undertaking such a study.
The predecessor of the present Prime Minister showed great interest in such a committee being established. When I asked this session that such a committee be established, the only objection raised by the government house leader was that there was not sufficient time to deal with the matter, having in mind other legislation to be considered by the house. But I urge that we take the first opportunity to establish such a committee and thereby really measure up to our responsibility for looking after the welfare of animals in this country. We have expressed our responsibility in this regard, now let us act upon it.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Winch) for drawing the attention of the house to this very relevant question.
I wish to join briefly in this debate because my riding, that is Berthier, is essentially a rural one and a large number of my constituents are engaged in the breeding and slaughter of animals. As representative of this riding, I must see that the latter activity is carried out in the most humane way possible.
In the Berthier riding, there are fish-breeding stations for purpose of supplying the lakes for fishing and for experimental purposes. There is mink-breeding for commercial purposes and hogs, cattle, chickens, etc. are raised for the market.
Having visited various facilities, I am happy that modern and humane methods are used today which are oddly different from the cruel ones in use previously and which are still too often employed, namely clubs, knives, axes or else the method which we recently deplored during the seal hunting season.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Private members' hour having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the date of March 31 has arrived, can the minister tell us what he intends to do tomorrow with regard to the situation not only in the port of Montreal but along the whole of the St. Lawrence River.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Until I receive the conciliation board report, which I should receive by midnight, I have no way of anticipating what the position will be in the port of Montreal tomorrow. As hon. members know, seven days after receiving the report the unions

March 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry could conceivably go on strike or management could conceivably lock the unions out. At the present moment, I understand that negotiations with the conciliation board are going on and, I presume, will be going on until ten or eleven o'clock this evening. I can only hope that a satisfactory settlement is reached.
To recapitulate, I must receive the conciliation board report by midnight tonight.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether, without giving a legal opinion, he can advise the house on the status of the injunction obtained about 15 months ago with regard to the port of Montreal.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not being a lawyer, I am not sure of the proper terminology. If I recall and this is subject to correction, I believe the injunction was kept in abeyance last year by some legal procedure as part of a settlement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell from this cock-eyed roster whether the minister will be here tomorrow. If he is, will he give a statement in the house with regard to this matter because, so far as Canada is concerned, the situation on the river is scandalous.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is a matter of opinion as to who made it scandalous, labour or management.



AIRPORTS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As he stated this afternoon that he had to use the services of a private advertising agency, why did not the minister see fit to use the C.B.C. which after all is a government advertising policy, to announce its policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will have to take that question as notice. I do not know whether or not the C.B.C. provides a commercial service. I have forgotten what the exact reason was, but I will be glad to find out.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I should like to ask the minister if he does not have enough public relations people in his department, why he had-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the house why he thought appropriate to call upon the services of a private commercial agency, instead of those of the C.B.C.? Can we expect that in the future government policy will be announced in much the same manner as soap is?



PREPARATION OF TAPES RESPECTING SITES- CONSIDERATION OF POSITION OF QUEBEC GOVERNMENT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister is the Acting Prime Minister and has the necessary degree of authority, I wonder if he could tell us whether any tapes other than the one with regard to the announcement of the new site, were made in Ottawa or any other place prior to the announcement in the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure I understand my hon. friend's question. To what other tapes is he referring?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can make it very clear for the Acting Prime Minister. Was any other tape made with reference to any other site than the one that was made in relation to the pronouncement in the house?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have ,a further supplementary question. I am sure the Acting Prime Minister had all the facts when he said no other tape was made. Did he make any other tape?


Mr. Bell:: Not to his knowledge.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I did not, Mr. Speaker. I was hopeful that the cabinet would take the decision that it did which, in my opinion, was the right one. I think it was superior in all respects to the two sites which were favoured by the province of Quebec. I think it was in the best interests of the people, not only in the Montreal region but of all the taxpayers of Canada, that the site that was chosen was chosen. With that in mind and with the hope
March 31. 1969

that the cabinet would agree that the technical consideration should prevail over the political consideration of choosing the site on the South Shore, I felt it was wise to prepare what I had hoped would be useful information.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister, who must know Tennyson, that the cows may come and the cows may go, but the bull goes on forever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise us whether he felt that the making of the tape by himself and his colleague could be used for the moral suasion of his colleagues in the cabinet?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister kindly advise the house whether the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development was stating the government position when he indicated that if the province of Quebec had felt strongly enough about this decision and could advance other arguments the cabinet would have given it further consideration and review?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We were open for discussions all along. We started co-operating with the province of Quebec many months ago, and we gave them access to all the technical information we had. They made information available to us to support the various points' of view that they wished to put forward. This spirit of co-operation on our part was manifest right through to the end. As I indicated this afternoon, we would even have been willing to meet with them again in the final days or hours before the cabinet took its decision last Thursday, and if there was any technical information or any fact which had been overlooked, to give it the consideration that it would deserve.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You gave it ahead of time.



CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can the minister tell us whether or not the Canada Council has recently changed its policy with regard to grants given to amateur 29180-465
Inquiries of the Ministry talent in Canada, and whether in fact the council has refused to give grants to amateurs in the field of arts in Canada? If so, when did this policy change?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was not informed of any such change of policy, but I shall gladly get in touch with the Canada Council to find out about any initiative on their part that I would not know about.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the minister correctly, it is still the policy of the Canada Council to give grants to those in the field of arts who are still regarded as amateurs rather than professionals.


Gérard Pelletier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is not what I said. I said that to my knowledge, the Canada Council policy has not undergone any substantial change recently. And I do not think that it has ever been the Canada Council's policy to subsidize amateur groups, except to help them acquire a professional status as quickly as possible providing they were already close to such status.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. I ajm sorry to press the matter but there is some urgency and importance to it as far as many groups are concerned. So that there is no misunderstanding, is it then the policy of the Canada Council to give grants to professional groups only in this country?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have just said the opposite. I am quite willing to get more precise information on that and to read again certain texts, but if I am not mistaken, the Canada Council's aim is to subsidize professional groups or groups likely to become professional in a short time, through the help of such grants.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
FREEZE ON MARITIME FREIGHT RATES Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question about the freeze on maritime freight rates, a question I have been
[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry trying to ask for some time but the minister has been busy with other problems.
In view of the postponement of the legislation and commitments made in the bouse, and also in view of the great consternation of the maritime shippers about the matter, since the minister will not be here tomorrow can he say before the Easter recess Whether there will be any increase in rates, or is there a definite commitment from the railways that the rates will not be increased?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, on the basis of discussions we had with the railways as soon as the bill was introduceed, as an act of good faith on our part, they agreed not to increase their rates pending passage of the bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I just be sure of that, Mr. Speaker, because the minister may have mixed the question up, though of course not intentionally. Until the legislation dealing with this question comes in and is passed, the railways have categorically promised not to increase these rates on which there is presently a freeze?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is my understanding. There is no reason for hesitation on my part except that, as my hon. member friend knows, it is impossible to be categorical about all things. But it is my understanding that there will be no increase on the basis that the bill will be passed.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this matter is dealt with in the fifth report of the transport committee and I understand that concurrence in the report will be moved tomorrow, will the minister obtain an assurance from the government house leader that the house Will, in fact, concur in this report tomorrow?



AIRPORTS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity as government house leader, arising out of the discussion this afternoon on the question of privilege of the hon. member for Calgary North and some of the answers given this evening. In view of the fact that members of

the house are concerned about the early disclosure of the choice of the site of the airport, would the President of the Privy Council give consideration to referring the matter of the early disclosure the way it was done, and the reasons for which it was done, to the standing committee on transport so that committee can study it and make a report to the house on the propriety or advantages, or the impropriety or disadvantages, of what was done?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me abundantly clear that there was no impropriety of any kind, and that no advantage would be gained from continuing this discussion. If the hon. member is seriously interested in the question he should encourage his colleagues on the transport committee, who at the moment are considering the estimates of the department, of transport to discuss the matter further in the committee.


David Lewis: A supplementary question.
Surely, the President of the Privy Council is aware that even I knew of that possibility. What I am asking him is whether he agrees to a house order referring the matter to the transport committee so that the transport committee would then discuss it, instead of having an argument about whether or not the committee should do something about it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member knew about that possibility he would not have asked the second question. The estimates of the Department of Transport are before the committee and the building of airports in Montreal is one of the subjects that can be discussed.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is now government policy to pre-tape all government decisions in the manner this decision was?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just because government backbenchers yell "order"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that this is a rather new assignment for me, but my understanding is that a question of that nature can be
March 31, 1969

asked of the Acting Prime Minister, not of the President of the Privy Council. In any event, though I hesitate to prejudge the matter, it seems to me to be argumentative.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, nothing has made me happier than the direction you have given me, and I think it is proper. May I ask the question of the Acting Prime Minister, because he is well aware of the facts. Is* it now government policy that confidential information and information of the kind we have been discussing will now be pre-taped?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any policy, but as I indicated the government took the decision to do it in this case. I am sure that anything as complex and technical as were the factors entering into a decision of this kind would justify the use and preparation of electronic press releases, as was done in this case. I would recommend it to anybody who was dealing with a situation as complex and difficult as this. I would recommend it to my hon. friend sometimes too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one further supplementary question. Did the minister's colleagues in the government approve of the decision that he and the other minister took in this regard?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



POTATOES


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any announcement to make as a result of a meeting held today between a delegation from Prince Edward Island and the stabilization board regarding the possibility of a floor price for potatoes to take effect in June owing to the very unsatisfactory level of potato prices for the past three years, over and above the diversion program that has already been announced?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful exchange with regard to this problem and the magnitude of the problem. A number of administrative considerations would have to be taken into account in the kind of program suggested by the hon. member. However, I am not prepared to make a statement today. Indeed, I think it will take several days to consider all 29180-465i
Inquiries of the Ministry the matters that must be considered before an announcement can be made.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would indicate, in view of the fact that time is very short for potato growers in Prince Edward Island and other parts of the Atlantic region, whether he or his government is giving consideration to instituting again this season acreage payments somewhat similar to those enacted last season?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The information that has come to me during the last few months indicates that, in fact, the potato growers do not like that kind of program.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question. Can the minister assure the house that whatever steps are taken will be taken in time to give assistance this growing season to the potato producers of Prince Edward Island?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What is in time and what is not is, of course, always relative. We want to be as helpful as we can in what we recognize to be a very severe market situation.



AIR CANADA


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. On the third of February when answering a question he stated Air Canada was considering further developments at Dorval in addition to the $21,200,000 expenditure referred to. Has the government authorized since then an additional project involving on expenditure of somewhere around $54 million for shops, hangar bases and other matters?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and get the airline to prepare a full statement for my hon. friend which will give him all facts in respect of their plans concerning the construction of maintenance bases.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: In
view of the fact the minister will be looking into the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, will the minister ask Air Canada whether included in this $54 million is $21,500,000 for new overhaul facilities at Dorval?

March 31. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
My second question, Mr. Speaker, is the new jumbo hangar costing another $21 million included in the special projects budget or is it part of the 1968 budget?
My third question, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Possibly the Minister of Transport would like to incorporate the supplementary questions in his jumbo statement to be made at some future date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I could answer, Mr. Speaker, the statement I have undertaken to obtain will answer the first, second, and possibly even a third question.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't asked the third one yet.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that should properly be put to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Since Devco presented the government with an early retirement plan, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the house whether the government has sanctioned the idea of compulsory retirement for miners at the age of 60?


Mr. Bussell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could check that. I could refer it to the minister for an answer later.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I think possibly this question could be answered by the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. This is a very urgent matter. It has been brought to the attention of the government on several different oocassions. The plan of compulsory retirement at the age of 60 has been before them for quite some time.
This is not a pension plan, it is an early retirement plan. The company keeps the books and maintains that these employees must remain on the roll subject to recall.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member might be allowed to ask the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that

someone inform the government as to what is going on, especially the backbenchers.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. Without prejudging that particular point of view- that may be the case but this is not the time to debate it-I invite the hon. member to put his question directly.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I had put the question. I put the question a number of times over the past several months and I always get the same answer. Somebody refers it to somebody else. Is there no one on that side of the house who knows what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to take the time of the house to refer to precedents. This question has been put on a number of occasions to the responsible minister. I hold in my hand a copy of the roster to which ministers are supposed to adhere. The minister responsible for this particular question is not present tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member claims he has a point of privilege. I will hear it. Maybe he can be allowed to state it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I don't want to hear these interjections and the calls for order from the other side of the house. It is the responsibility of the Chair to keep them in their place. It may be I can wait them out.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Malcolm MacInnis: The bums and idiots have been at it all the time.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: I still insist on finishing my question of privilege.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am prepared to hear the hon. member on a point of privilege. That is what I would like to hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The precedents have been established over the months in respect of this question. I realize when I put an oral question that no minister is compelled to answer, but they have been saying they will take it as notice and the answer will be provided. The miners who are being compulsorily retired in
March 31, 13G9

Cape Breton are entitled to some consideration in this situation. The Minister of Labour or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration should be in a position to say something as to whether men should be compulsorily retired at the age of 60.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON VOLUME DRIED

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Has he now completed comparing notes with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Can he now give a more complete report to the house on the amount of grain that has been dried on farms, at country elevators and terminals and what estimated amounts remain to be dried?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it will take me a minute and a half to give this information. It goes forward with the qualifications I gave previously. It is very difficult to get estimates on this kind of operation. We believe there are now approximately 3,468 dryers in the prairie provinces with a total drying capacity of 4,994,000 bushels per day.
Weather conditions during February were not conducive to drying. It is estimated there were approximately 60 million bushels dried on farms up to March 1. It is estimated also there could be as much as 193 million bushels remaining to be dried as of March 1. If 60 per cent of the capacity of these 3,468 grain dryers were used, we estimate it would probably take seven or eight weeks to clean up the balance of the damp grain on the farms.
We have more precise figures respecting the amount that has been dried in the terminals. I gave some of that information earlier today. I could add to that because it is reasonably precise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suggest the minister have leave of the house to table all of these figures so they will appear in Hansard. It would be easier for all of us.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speeaker, during the visit of the Agricultural Committee to western Canada during the Easter recess, is it the minister's intention to sit in on a number of its meetings so that he could1 ascertain the real seriousness of the situation, especially following the announcement of the final wheat payment?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is already aware of the seriousness of the situation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As a further supplementary question may I ask the minister if the figures he just quoted include any estimate of grain dried at country elevators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the figure I gave was the amount dried at all positions other than terminals.



AIRPORTS


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question a while ago, but the main question was put 25 minutes ago. I will nevertheless put my question now to the Secretary of State.
Was the C.B.C. aware of the decision taken by the cabinet last Thursday?


Gérard Pelletier: I am unable to give this information, Mr. Speaker. I will have to inquire about that myself.



BROADCASTING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and I suppose it is related to the question that has just been asked. In view of its importance to the broadcasting media, could the Secretary of State indicate whether it is his intention to make tapes available to the media of the statement with respect to the new directive controlling the foreign ownership of broadcasting facilities in Canada, or is he going to be content with the old fashioned type of press release that reached each hon. member today?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the directives have been properly given. They had been announced for a very long time and I must admit I was abroad when they were given all that publicity.
However, should the hon. member for Brandon-Souris find the information lacking in precision, I could certainly let him have the text of the directives or even table it in the house.

March 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the minister, and I can assure him that we have a copy of the directive on our desks. My question was designed to determine whether the information was going to be disseminated through the mass media, in as much as it concerns the mass media, which seems to be the new policy of the government. With respect to the supplementary does the minister intend to announce similar directives with respect to the control of foreign ownership of newspapers in Canada and, if so, when?


Gérard Pelletier: As far as the press is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that the Secretary of State has no authority whatsoever over the press in Canada which, until now, I understand, has remained private property and does not fall within the jurisdiction of any government agency.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister or whoever is responsible for Canadian exhibits at state fairs in the United States of America. I have information here that at the Florida state fair held in Tampa this year there was no Canadian literature in the English language. I would like to know if this is the practice with all our state exhibits? Is this practical in Florida? Who is responsible for it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would be the responsible minister and I would be glad to refer the hon. gentleman's question to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Possibly I might recgonize two more hon. members before calling orders of the day, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he say whether his department is investigating the alleged
IMr. Pelletier.]
activities of the C.Y.C. and the weaponry allegedly used in the messy McGill flare up over the week end?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have inquired from the Company of Young Canadians concerning the allegation that three members of the Company, who were participating in a project at Joliette, had been arrested in connection with the demonstrations that took place the other night.
The Company of Young Canadians headquarters here in Ottawa informed me as follows: of the three persons arrested and designated as volunteers of the Company in the newspapers, none of them have ever been members of the said Company or are members of it at the present time.
As regards the weapons found in a building in Joliette, I am informed that the Company of Young Canadians has an office in the said building and the remaining space is occupied by a union federation. The weapons were found under a staircase which in any case is outside the building, and not nearer the office of the Company of Young Canadians than that of the trade-union and in a place accessible to any passer-by.
Such is the information given me by the Company on the Joliette case.



HOUSING


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing. It arises from an answer he gave me on March 25 when I asked him a question with respect to approval for one of the two urban renewal projects in Vancouver. At that time he told me:
If it can be proven that going ahead with additional renewal projects at this time is the best use of the money available to provide better housing and better conditions for Canadian citizens, then of course it will be considered sympathetically.
I would like to know whether the minister has discussed with Vancouver what forms of proof are necessary to show that this project should be gone ahead with and, if so, with what results?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not specifically in those terms, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated this afternoon, I have now seen
March 31, 1969	COMMONS
two of the major outstanding renewal projects at Hamilton and Kitchener. It is my intention to visit seven or eight more before recommending to the government what policy we should follow in the immediate future in this respect.
I hope to do so very soon. It would be my intention to visit Vancouver and to take a look at that project on the ground again before reaching any conclusion. Last time I was out there I did visit part of a proposed urban renewal area. There was tremendous opposition then on the part of the people who live there. They did not wish to have their houses destroyed; they were proud of their houses and they felt that there were better solutions. I must say that I was inclined to agree with them. However, I would like to visit them again in the context of the present review, and then indicate to the municipalities concerned what we intend to do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order, please. Actually I should point out to hon. members that I allowed the questions of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in addition to the regular question period time, and so I did not think we should pursue supplementaries at this point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that after I have given you my reasons for this point of order you would perhaps allow me to pursue this matter with just one further supplementary question.
I believe that the minister has just made a statement saying he intends to visit some seven, eight or nine more cities. In order that those who would be involved might have some preknowledge of his visits perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would allow me to ask the minister if he would indicate to the house which cities he intends to visit?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If it is the disposition of the house to allow this question, certainly we can proceed with it. But again, I would point out that I have allowed the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to go over the allotted time, and I note that the hon. member for Oxford also wants to ask a question. I am sure there are other hon. members who wish to ask questions. Possibly it is the disposition of the house to allow this one question to be put, but I would like to call orders of the day after that.
DEBATES	7341
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Act


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure I can recall them from memory but included in them would be Vancouver, Calgary, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, Niagara Falls and two or three others.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was announced on numerous occasions last week by the Prime Minister that today, Monday, there would be an announcement with regard to Canada's future position in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We realize the reason the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and some other hon. members are absent today; it is a very sad occasion in the capital of our neighbouring country. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is not here to make the announcement which had been indicated would be made today, and so that we might hear about it before the house adjourns, perhaps Your Honour would use his good offices to find out whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position to make the announcement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was about to suggest the statement was more in the way of a representation than a point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Eric William Kierans: I move:
That Bill S-5, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment), from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Eric William Kierans: that the bill be read a third time and passed.
March 31, 1969

Co-operative Credit Association Act


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the members of the house that I do not intend to delay the passage of this bill. I should like to comment, in passing, that the affairs of the C.O.T.C. have been thoroughly examined both in a committee of this house and of the other place. This is one of the few agencies of government which consistently turns in a profit. It is one of the few organizations which apparently has the taxpayer in mind, and certainly should be commended on its operations.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to slow down the debate; however, I would like to add a few words to what my hon. friend has just said.
As I was on the committee which had an opportunity to hear the officials of that Crown corporation, I might say that not only has the corporation shown a deficit since its inception but this year it gave back to the government $5 million it had requested for capital investment. It will manage the proposed investment without the help of the government; that, in my opinion, shows good management that could be taken as a model by all other crown corporations.


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

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I move:
That Bill S-28, to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief intervention at this stage to draw to the attention of hon. members the proceedings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Particularly if one examines the testimony of Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, as it appears at page 1712 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 33, one will see the purpose of this bill. It is very simple and


I shall not repeat what Mr. Humphrys, in a matter of a column or so, put very succinctly before the committee. He set forth the strata in respect of the application of this act. It does not apply to individual credit unions of provincial origin. It applies to the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, as well as a number of provincial centrals. Mr. Humphrys pointed out that this is purely a matter of housekeeping. It simplifies the procedure for future adherents so that it will not be necessary to come back to parliament every time a central or other appropriate credit union body wishes to come under the Act.
At the time of the hearings, I was particularly concerned about the nature of investments that could be made by the centrals and by the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society since they do act almost as reserve banks, if one could use the simile of reserve banks in respect of credit unions. However, I have been advised by Mr. Humphrys that this is very well covered by the examination he makes of their portfolios, so I think we are all satisfied for the time being at least that these organizations are in good hands. I would commend this bill and hope that we could get on with the passage of it, subject to any observations which any hon. member might make.


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


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


Gérard Pelletier: I move:
That Bill C-ll, respecting the National Library, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Gérard Pelletier: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to move an amendment in respect of this particular bill but unfortunately, business has been moving so rapidly in recent days due to the fine co-operation from the members of the opposition that I have not had an opportunity under the new rules to move such an amendment. Therefore, the remarks I would have made on the
March 31. 1969

amendment I will now make at the third reading stage. I suppose this is the penalty for having been so long in the house that we have become accustomed to the days when ordinary members of parliament really had some fundamental say in what went on with regard to the day to day business of parliament.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We have unfortunately arrived at a stage in the evolution of parliament at which the position of the private member is being downgraded and the position of the executive in our governmental system is being enhanced to a degree which I feel is not in the best interest of democracy in this country. It is on this point that I wish to speak briefly. Those Members of Parliament who are privileged to be on the committee on Films, Broadcasting and the Arts will know that the question I intend to discuss tonight was discussed in some length in that committee. However, I make no apology for repeating matters tonight because unfortunately our committee system is so bogged down in a mass of dein terms of giving private members an opportunity to participate adequately in the ongoing process of parliament. The committee system is so bogged down in a mass of details, members are so hard-pressed to spread themselves over the multiplicity of committees, that it is almost impossible to come to grips with the real issues of legislation as it passes through the legislative mill.
I could use this as an occasion on which to make some sort of plea to the government, to the executive arm of parliament, to give the committee system some badly needed assistance. If we want it to function successfully we must provide increased research assistance, a greater opportunity to deal with legislative matters in depth. We must take up the slack which has occurred because of the short-circuiting of what used to be known as the committee of the whole in the House of Commons. There was a time when in order to maintain a close control of the executive one could, on the spur of the moment, arising from an issue which emerged in the course of discussion, bring in an amendment. Nowadays, unfortunately, we do not have such an opportunity.
The particular bill before the house is of some significance in the field of communications in Canada to the extent that it deals with the formal establishment of a national library service. The first bill of this sort was enacted in 1952 and of coure, we were faced
National Library Act
at that time with a situation in which we had an act of parliament but no library other than the Parliamentary Library and the services it provided. The bill now before the house is related to the new facilities which have become available to house the national library and the archives, a project which got under way in 1962.
As I compare the old act with the bill now before the house, I contend that the emphasis placed on the function of the minister with respect to the administration of the National Library is considerably greater in the new legislation than in the old. We are all aware that to ensure a healthy democracy adequate communication facilities are essential. They carry the main burden of providing the cement which holds the nation together. Communications facilities provide the educational, cultural and information services which are necessary to an adequate dialogue within the nation with respect to urgent issues of national importance, particularly national unity. We maintain a Post Office Department-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -operated directly by the Government of Canada as one of the basic ingredients of this process of communication. It has often been suggested that the Post Office should be separated from government and I think the present Postmaster General is one of the leading exponents of this view as he tries to downgrade, or upgrade, depending on one's viewpoint, the postal service in connection with the changes which have recently taken place.
The government has also become deeply involved in the provision of communications services through the mass media of broadcasting. The Parliament of Canada authorizes substantial sums annually to make it possible for a Crown agency, the C.B.C., reporting to this house through the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to carry on an adequate system of electronic communication. In all other information operations having to do with the sensitive subject of educational and cultural services the Government of Canada has always done its utmost to create at least the fiction, or the impression, that these facilities as they are operated at federal level are in no way directly connected with the government itself. The C.B.C., for example, is operated by a Crown agency. The National Museums, which are closely related to the kind of services provided by the National Library, have, in accordance with a recent amendment to the

March 31, 1969
National Library Act
National Museums Act, set up a board of trustees, and as I understand it from the interpretation of the Secretary of State himself, this board is free from the direct control of the responsible minister.
I have been pursuing in this house questions with respect to the commissionaire service provided by the National Museums of Canada with particular reference to bilingualism, and the Secretary of State has always taken the attitude that this is the responsibility of the board of trustees. In other words, governments have hesitated to become directly involved in the supervision of, and in the direct control of, communications services which relate to educational and cultural matters.
This house will shortly be debating the establishment of an educational television agency. As I read the approach taken in that legislation the same principle is to be carried out, on the premise that E.T.V. will be providing services in this sensitive area of education and culture.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I now come to the point that I have made in committee. I believe I also made it during the first reading stage when the bill was originally introduced. This is the part of the legislation which I find objectionable in principle. The Canadian Library Association, in its representations1 on the matter has also hinted broadly that it shares the same suspicions, namely, that the government, through the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), is becoming much too deeply involved in the every day activities of our national library service.
The original brief presented to the government by the Canadian Library Association and its French speaking equivalent recommended that the National Library be operated as a crown corporation, in order to get around this difficulty. They expanded on this thought by indicating that they wanted the National Library to be a truly national service and not the errand-boy for any particular arm of government.
The government has obviously, as we view the bill, not accepted the recommendations of the Canadian Library Association in this respect. We had some discussion in committee on this point and the Secretary of State indicated that the Canadian Library Association had after some persuasion changed its mind in this1 respect. However, in my continuing discussions with some of the leaders of the
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
library association movement in Canada I find that the same idea still persists, namely, that the National Library is violating this fundamental principle which I have outlined briefly, and which applies to all other areas of government participation in cultural education, by making the Secretary of State directly responsible.
Had there been the opportunity to move an amendment, I would have submitted an amendment which would have called for the deletion of clause 4 of the bill. While this would not deal with the problem in its entirety, it would at least go some way to satisfying members of the opposition, as well as all private members of this house who are concerned with the diminishing role and influence of the backbench member of parliament with regard to government bills. Clause
4	reads as follows:
The minister shall preside over and has the supervision of the management and direction of the library.
The key words there are "preside over", "supervision of" and "management and direction" of the library. This feature of the new bill is entirely absent from the original National Library bill. We inquired of the law officers of the crowin why the offending principle was stated in such explicit terms, because this clause stands by itself. There are no subclauses; it is just a bold and blunt statement under the heading "Administration of Library." It places the Secretary of State in the pre-eminent role in the administration of the affairs of our new National Library. The law officers of the crown explained that this is the new technique, the new way of making legislation tidier and the terminology of bills' a little more explicit.
There was a further explanation, that it is a natural evolutionary process. If one were to read some of the further clauses of the bill, the explicit powers of the minister as outlined in clause 4 are implied in the clauses immediately subsequent thereto. For example, clause
5	(1) provides:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be called the National Librarian.
The subsequent subclauses outline the duties, functions -and responsibilities of the National Librarian. This is the form these provisions took in the original act. Perhaps one of the reasons the government has fallen into the error of the violation of the principle of maintaining at least the fiction that it has nothing to do with communication matters is
March 31, 1969

that our parliamentary library has been operating for a number of years in a double capacity. It has been serving not only the members of parliament, but as Canada's national library, the only national library that was available.
It is understandable that with reference to the functions; of the parliamentary library, the government would have some close administrative control and responsibility as, of course, would members of this house. We have had a parliamentary committee responsible for the administration of the affairs of the parliamentary library. But we are now moving into a stage of library service and development which completely divorces the functioning of our National Library from the functioning of the parliamentary library. I think this is where the government has fallen into error; it has failed to appreciate that we are now in a new phase of library development in Canada. The National Library has powers and responsibilities, educational and informational functions that are far greater than those ever performed by its predecessor, the parliamentary library.
Perhaps for the sake of the argument I am putting forward I could quote from a book entitled "National Libraries", which is compiled of extracts from the proceedings of the University and Research Section Conference held at Bangor in April, 1963. This was a meeting of representatives of national libraries from most of the democratic countries of the world. On page 11, this book gives details of the functions that are regarded as those that should be carried out by national libraries in democratic countries.
'[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
They are as follows:
1.	Collecting national literature.
2.	Collecting foreign literature.
3.	Serving as a book museum.
4.	Giving the public access to the collections.
5.	Carrying out information service and bibliographical activity.
6.	Functioning as a training centre.
7.	Participating in national library planning.
I think that list indicates that the functions of a national library are quite intimately concerned with the everyday on-going process of cultural land educational dissemination. Indeed, I would say that a national library service is one of the most effective forces in a grass roots educational program.
While we expend more money on the electronic media as compared with the funds that .are available for the national library service,
National Library Act
I think it is still agreed by scholars that in the long run the printed word is the essence of the educational system in any country and that libraries are the storehouse of knowledge. It is upon the libraries that we must depend for the on-going process of cultural and educational development. On the basis of the seventh function of a national library service as outlined at the conference held at Bangor, which is the participation in national library planning, the National Library will be co-ordinating with the provincial libraries. They, in turn, will be co-ordinating with the libraries at the level of local communities. It is for this reason that I think clause 4 is completely out of context, as well as on the basis of Canada's past experience in dealing with the dissemination of cultural information through the medium of libraries. It is certainly out of context with the emphasis that is placed by the government in its proposed legislation to establish an educational television agency.
I do not think I need to say anything further to establish the point, and there is no action I can take to test the sense of the house on this matter. However, I thought it was incumbent on me to point out that we are trespassing into an area that has serious implications for all communications media. The feeling is shared by those who are most intimately concerned with provisional library services of the Canadian Library Association and its French speaking equivalent. There was a move in the committee to have more direct representation from the Canadian Library Association on the advisory council that is provided for in the act. Unfortunately, this1 was negated by the committee, so that even this attempt by librarians to become more closely involved in the functions and services of the library have not been made possible under the act.
One of the arguments that is frequently used in cases of this kind is that under the present government, and under the present minister, there will be no abuse of the extraordinary privileges that are granted under clause 4. Of course, that is not the way we look at the process of legislation in a democratic parliament. The government can certainly lean over backwards to avoid even the semblance of trespassing into one of the most sensitive areas of public policy, and I am sure that as the days and years go by and this house is faced with the consideration of its approach to other means of communication sponsored by the government in Canada, we

March 31, 1969
National Library Act
will have occasion to regret the step we are taking at this time.
As a final word, let me just repeat what this bill calls for. Even though the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) may never use these powers to downgrade the national interest or to exert any particular pressure that a government in power can exert when it has direct control and access to communication media, you will agree that this is hardly in keeping with the principle that has always been followed in Canada. Clause 4 reads:
The Minister shall preside over and has the supervision of the management and direction of the Library.
I would have been much more content if the general terms that already exist in the act of 1952 had been carried forward, and if we had allowed the national librarian appointed by the Governor in Council to have reasonable freedom of action in administering the library, subject of course to reporting to parliament through the Secretary of State, as is the arrangement with the C.B.C. and as no doubt will be the arrangement with E.T.V.
I think that it would have been a much better solution to the problem if the advisory council had been given greater powers, as is the board of trustees of the National Museum. The mistake has been made; it is the government's mistake, and they will have to live with it.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to extend the debate on this bill but as for the comments of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I just remind hon. members that the Secretary of State moved third reading, and therefore has no right to reply except by leave of the house.


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Gérard Pelletier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any case, I wish to make only brief comments on some things said by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.
I shall first say that I am amazed at the complaints which he formulated about the

structure of the committees which, according to him, act like a kind of gag on hon. members and prevent them from introducing amendments. This statement bears no relation to reality. The truth is just the opposite. Indeed, hon. members now have the opportunity, every time a bill is studied in committee, to present amendments. Besides, four amendments which were introduced and accepted by the committee are written into the legislation that we are discussing tonight, and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris himself presented an amendment which was defeated by the majority of the members of the committee. But hon. members have a second opportunity to propose amendments to the house at this stage of the proceedings.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I must even tell him that I was quite amazed, because of his opposition to section 4 of the act, that he did not put any notice of amendment on the order paper because he could have done so. In fact, he could have proposed an amendment tonight, provided of course he had respected the very simple rule under which he had to give a 24-hour notice.
The main argument of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is to the effect that the National Library should be a crown corporation. It is true that this body will have to become part more and more of a certain communication network. However, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that a library does not express an opinion, does not put any product on the market, but provides services,
As for me, I believe that barring an extremely serious reason, as for instance respect of the freedom of speech-which is the case in the broadcasting field-we must not take any field of activity away from the minister's responsibility. In a system such as ours, it is a duty for us to take such responsibilities.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris states that clause 4 gives extraordinary powers to the minister, but I should like nevertheless to point out to him that it does not say that the minister shall administer the Library but rather, and I quote:
The minister shall preside over ... the management and direction of the Library-
That already provides some leeway and gives the National Librarian a much greater importance than if the law spoke of direct management by the minister.
March 31, 1969
The hon. member referred to the recommendation made by the Canadian Library Association in a brief presented to the National Librarian and to the Secretary of State, in which it suggested that the National Library should become a crown corporation. But following open and friendly discussions, the Canadian Library Association fell in with the reasons we explained, so much so that when it appeared a few weeks later before the committee, it did not bring up that suggestion again. Therefore, when the hon. member for Brandon-Souris says that the Association made a vague reference to it, I must tell him that it was so vague that I could not even find a trace of it in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee.
I am also surprised to hear the hon. member say that the government may have erred in wanting to control the National Library, in the field of communications, because it already controls the Library of Parliament. The point of the matter is that the government does not control the Library of Parliament which is not a governmental but a parliamentary institution answerable to the Speakers of both houses who are advised by a joint committee of both houses.
I should like to say one word only about the library associations that are not represented on the advisory board of the Library. This amendment was rejected and the provision dealing with the appointment of representatives of those two associations was not incorporated in the act for a very simple reason. First of all, they are not institutions incorporated by an act of the parliament of Canada and secondly, they are professional associations to which anything can happen. For instance, they can amalgamate or split up. They could even-which would be unfortunate-disappear as other professional associations have in the past, and then the act would contain a section that could no longer be applied.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wished to make with regard to this bill. To my mind, it meets efficiently the pressing need to modernize the National Library and turn it into an even more efficient instrument than it has1 been until now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act FARM MACHINERY SYNDICATES CREDIT ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson for third reading of Bill C-112, to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my comments on this bill will not be long, in the hope that well before ten o'clock we might have given the bill and the amendments contained therein, the thorough examination they deserve. If we pass this bill we will have disposed of the measures that we feel should be dealt with by the house before we recess.
I have three comments to make in connection with this bill, which contains the amendments introduced in connection with the provision of credit assistance to Indian bands, amendments which had to be introduced because the recommendation of His Excellency was required. This is now the subject of this bill.
On the merits, I will limit myself to saying that I concur completely with what was said by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) at the time we were previously debating the issue. He made some very pertinent and relevant observations with regard to this matter, and I think was quite justified in so doing.
The house should be aware that the general effect of the amendments introduced in connection with the Farm Credit Act will be to establish really two classes of citizens, the Indian people and those who are non-Indian. The basis on which the Indian people will benefit from this legislation, as in the case of the farm credit bill, certainly places them in a far less advantageous position, and at a time when we in this house have been patiently waiting for the government to bring down the amendments to the Indian Act as well as the Indian claims commission legislation.
I would have thought that the paternalistic attitude that is certainly implicit in these amendments was one that the government would have been most hesitant about embracing. What we find here is the provision that Indian bands and Indian people may only with the blessing, sanction and approval of the minister who is responsible for answering

March 31, 1969
7348	COMMONS
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act to this house for Indian affairs, enter into the agreements described in the bill.
It is not as if this were something new. In the course of another debate today I had occasion to put on the record a recommendation that was made by a joint committee seven and a hialf years ago. The members of that committee, having sat for a year and a half and most carefully observed the evidence given by the 99 witnesses, I believe it was, who appeared, saw fit to make recommendations, including the provision that the Indian people should be placed in precisely the same position, in so far as land holdings would permit, as other people.
One of the difficulties in the attempts of the Indian people to forge for themselves an opportunity to have the same way of life as other people was that they faced the obstacle of not being able to obtain credit. On Indian reserves, as is well known, there is no fee simple ownership; there is a certificate of occupation only. Of course, they are not able to pledge land. After hearing evidence and studying the matter, the committee specifically recommended that provision be made for legislative changes in order to remove the barriers which now inhibit the Indian people in their attempts to receive credit so that they may farm and engage in agricultural activities along with non-Indian people. That should have been done within two years. Legislative proposals were introduced, but there was an election and the government changed hands. The matter has been marking time ever since.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We are hopefully awaiting changes in the Indian Act which will remove this and many other impediments. While I welcome any legislation which will permit the Indian people to receive some measure of credit, I am sorry to see it in this form. The Indian people have been waiting for a bill of rights. This has been the subject of discussion for some months.
I hope the legislation of the type embraced in the four comers of this amendment and which appears in the amendments to the Farm Credit Act will put the Indian people in precisely the same position as other people.
I deplore the paternalistic attitude found in this amendment. It states that only when the minister responsible for the Indian people under the provisions of the Indian Act permits will this credit be allowed. There must


be agreements or arrangements between the corporation and the minister.
I find some of the details are repugnant. My next objection is that it requires authorization by the governor in council. During the course of this session, members of this party repeatedly intimated to government ministers that we are most dissatisfied with the extent to which this government is seeking more power and encroaching on the rights of individuals. I had occasion to say something about that this afternoon.
This phenomena probably accounts to some extent for the acts of student violence and protest seen all over this country. As governments seek more power and make individuals conform to the viewpoints of government expressed through orders in council, there is a rising tide of resentment. I call attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is only when the governor in council sees fit to enact regulations for the kind of agreements contemplated that any benefits, meagre as they are, flow to the Indian people. This is simply not good enough.
I hope before this debate concludes the minister will indicate that the government intends to introduce the legislation which has been requested. We do not want to see programs and policies which place Indian people under inhibitions of having to depend on what the minister will work out by way of agreement with the corporation, making them wait until the governor in council sees fit to work out agreements. This should become a thing of the past. It is this colonialism and paternalism which marred the record of this country in its dealings with the Indian people.
I urge the minister to move rapidly when the occasion arises. Obviously, the government will not bring down this legislation before the Easter recess, but we on this side will insist that it be introduced before the end of this session. When that happens, the government will see the measure introduced into the Farm Credit Corporation Act. The companion measure in the Farm Credit Coporation Act will be replaced by something acceptable to the Indian people which will give them the opportunity of being in the same position as a non-Indian. They will have available to them credit facilities to engage in the agricultural industry. They will be able to take their place with the other farmers of Canada.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment to the motion makes a start at attempting to do
March 31. 1963
something for people in an area where nothing has been done previously. How well it will be done will depend on the people who administer it, and the people who receive it. Advancing credit to Indians as individuals and groups through the Farm Syndicates Act can be done well or badly.
Of all the various credit acts, the Farm Syndicate Credits Act will fit the need of the reserves best. These people are in the habit of working together to a greater extent than other farmers. At the hearings of the standing committee, I requested that the officials of the Indian Affairs branch appear before the committee. They did so for a full session, answering questions and giving information as to how they thought this- credit should be used and the circumstances under which it would be used.
According to the information supplied this is quite an undertaking. They stated that there were about 2 million acres of potential arable acreage on the Indian reserves, which would cost approximately $202 million to develop. They states $80 million could come from farm credit corporations, $40 million from ARDA and grants to the extent of something like $82 million.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
When these representatives, Mr. Churchman and Mr. Bergevin, talked to us it seemed to me that they expressed a real wish and desire to move in this direction and make the program work. If I were to express any misgivings, they would be that in the initial stages of preparation for this legislation there had not been enough consultation with the people on the reserves who were going to use it. Our reports indicate that there was a fair amount of consultation between the credit corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs. There was some understanding of the problem and how it might be solved. There had been discussions on the amount of supervision required, and the type of personnel available for setting up this program on the reserves. I would judge that there is a fair understanding by the departments concerned of how they will tackle the problem.
My information is that out of a total male Indian population of 15,548 in the province of Saskatchewan only 407 make their living from farming. To anyone who lives in that province and knows the amount of land occupied by Indians, this indicates that so far as farming is concerned we have barely scratched the surface. From my own limited
Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act personal observation I believe the potential for development is there. Having visited reserves, I know there are a number of people who are trying to get going and who have the will to move forward. Under these amendments, if there is co-operation between the two departments concerned, without too much bureaucracy, we may achieve a breakthrough so far as the Canadian government and the Indian people are concerned.
When people on reserves start using credit, essentially they are in the same position as any other Canadian farmers using credit. Their operation must be a viable one. The relationship between their prices and costs has to be such that the operation will pay its way, that a living can be made, that the interest can be paid and the capital retired. This is the area we need to be most concerned about, because with farming in its present state the margin of return and income is so low that if large amounts of capital are injected the operation simply will not carry the load.
With the agricultural task force proposing that 30 per cent of our land be taken out of wheat production, it is a pretty tough outlook for those who are going to borrow money to get into farming. This is the situation with which we are faced, but I do not take as grim a view of it as the James Richardson and Sons newsletter of March 27 which said:
A meeting of the major exporting countries will be held in Washington early next month to consider recent developments and discuss possible revisions in the agreement-
That is the International Grains Agreement.
[DOT]-which, in our opinion, is as dead as yesterday's newspaper, but hope springs eternal and we would be the first to applaud any constructive suggestions.
I do not think we as Canadians should accept that the I.G.A. is as dead as yesterday's newspaper. We have every right to expect that those who co-signed it along with us give it the full support it deserves. We have every right to expect that the United States government, which was the nation in particular that wanted us to enter into the GATT negotiations, would give full support to the I.G.A. But these are the circumstances under which we are operating. These are the circumstances under which the Farm Credit Corporation will be lending funds through the Farm Syndicates Act and other statutes.
We are faced with a possible switch in agricultural production, and in this area we need to be particularly attentive with respect to the Farm Syndicates Act. We should be

7350	COMMONS
Farm, Machinery Syndicates Credit Act more selective in the way that we make these moneys available. We should try to assess the market that is available for the areas in which we provide funds for farm production. It is time that we looked at the matter from this aspect. Up to now our basis of selection has largely been based on the individual farmer or on groups of individuals who had sufficient assets to give security. That was the main criterion, but I think we will have to use other criteria in the immediate future.
Another point which the task force made was that we should co-ordinate the various instruments of credit available under the government loaning agencies. Another suggestion was that we should disseminate our method of providing farm loans, that we should distribute it out among the provinces, instead of operating it through a central loaning agency on the federal level. This suggestion certainly does not recommend itself to me. I do not know how well it would work. This is one facet of its recommendations which the task force should be asked to explain in clearer terms. When the report comes in I hope this will be spelled out in a manner which can be accepted by reasonable and rational men.
Finally, I would hope that the government would give careful consideration to providing lower interest rates in areas where it thinks that expansion in farming can safely take place. In other words, the government should be more selective. I think this would be a useful approach, but whether consideration will be given to it or not remains to be seen. It does seem a tragedy that at the very moment when most of our farmers are in a very weak position in respect of their operations, they are faced with higher interest rates. If the forecasts of the task force are anywhere near correct, this is a time when many farmers will have to make a shift in production and borrow funds in order to make that shift. Therefore, it would not seem desirable that the interest rates should increase at this time. These circumstances would certainly deter farmers from making a shift rather than encourage them because higher interest rates would simply add to the costs of their operation. Of course, in these areas we must be careful. With all due respect to the task force, I think it is really a brave group of men who can forecast wheat production and markets over the next ten years. I have seen pretty able people attempt to do this in the past; they were wrong as often as they were right.
[Mr. Gleave.l
DEBATES	March 31, 1959
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I think we must take notice of the circumstances. I believe our credit program should be aimed at the circumstances as we see them now, and as we may be able to see them for four or five years hence, but certainly not for a ten year period. I think our crash program for this period should be tailored in that direction. For that reason, I say one thing we need is lower interest rates in certain areas to enable people to make adjustments which may need to be made. I think this is one of the important things we should do. I disagree altogether with the task force, if I read the report correctly. I would say that our main credit instrument should be in the federal field and not the provincial.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: I see there are about five minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few comments I wish to make. First, I am not sure whether the terminology in this amendment in respect of the Indians is clear or whether I am just becoming better able to understand it. However, it does seem to me to be better than the one contained in the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I am still rather concerned about the practical applications of the amendments as it affects Indians on reserves. I believe that anyone who seeks to borrow money under the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act should have a sophisticated knowledge of farming operations. From the information I have there would not seem to be too many Indians who would have this type of knowledge. I know some of them would like to enlarge their farming operations or move out in a different direction. They need help and encouragement.
I should like to commend the minister for including this in the act, but I suggest that help is needed in other forms so that the Indians will be in a position to use this particular line of credit. Until they are in a more viable position they will not in many cases be able to take advantage of this particular act. The farm credit people in the minister's department should give more leadership and guidance in this area. I am not too impressed that the Indian Affairs Branch is giving proper leadership in this regard. Quite frankly, I think what hais been accomplished in this regard is pretty awful. I would hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and his officials would be more active in this field in an effort to see that these people learn how to make proper use of credit. I would suggest to
March 31. 1969	COMMONS
him that if there is any failure it will reflect on the agricultural department and, in this case, on the minister. I should not like to see this happen, because it may mot be completely his fault. There are two departments involved in this. Frequently, this brings about an awkward situation.
I would suggest that the farm credit field under the Department of Agriculture in latter years has been fairly successful. I should like to see this continue. I hope the minister will consider some of these things because I believe it is important that these people make proper use of credit. This would help the economy in general and help these people in particular. I have not quite used up my five minutes so perhaps the minister might wish to reply.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on March 25 I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) a question concerning the allocations of box cars. At that time I alleged discrimination against the Saskatchewan wheat pool in respect of the allocation of box cars and pointed out that so far this year there had been some 5,000 fewer cars loaded than in the same period last year. On several occasions in the past fall and winter we were assured by one or other of the ministers of the Crown that the railways are co-operating and are doing really well in respect of the supplying of cars for grain.
For the information of the house I have the record in respect of cars of wheat and other
DEBATES	7351
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion grains loaded in western Canada for a few periods which I have picked at random. I have gone back to August 7. To August 7 from the beginning of last year, 61,507 fewer cars of wheat and other grains on western lines were loaded than the previous year. On December 31 it became worse. We had loaded 71,221 fewer cars of wheat and other grains on western lines. In the new year, by January 31 and in that one month, we had loaded 8,588 fewer cars of wheat and other grain than in the same month the previous year. From then on it started to improve slightly. As at February 21, there were 7,900 fewer cars and at February 28, there were 6,800 fewer cars. There were still 4,400 fewer cars by March 7, and 2,000 fewer cars of wheat and other grains were loaded as at March 14 this year compared to the same period last year.
As of today there are 915 cars of grain in transit destined for the lakehead which are being shipped to the Saskatchewan wheat pool. This is slightly less than 2 million bushels1. As of today, there is space for over 5 million bushels in the Saskatchewan wheat pool terminals at the lakehead. In other words, the Saskatchewan wheat pool requires 2,000 cars now to fill the space at the lake-head terminals and1 to provide enough cars in transit over the next three weeks to ensure that the terminal space will be used to capacity when ships start loading at the lakehead which will be within the next few days. In recent days or weeks the Canadian Wheat Board has placed restrictions on car loadings at the lakehead. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Wheat Board should be asked to lift the restrictions immediately as they apply to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The facts are that except for one or two very small terminals all the other terminals are full. But the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals are not. Yet restrictions on car loadings have been applied to them. In other years when the Saskatchewan pool terminals were full and terminals of line or private elevator companies were not full, restrictions were applied to the Wheat Pool only and not to the line company terminals.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool normally gets between 54 per cent and 55 per cent of the market. At the moment the figure stands at 52 per cent. In the past winter, it has fallen as low as 48 per cent. It seems strange to me that this drop of 2 per cent of the share
March 31, 1969
7352	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the market by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool should be equivalent to about 2,000 boxcars which is the number now needed to fill the space they have at the Lakehead and to provide sufficient loads in transit to make full use of shipping space.
There has been a principle for which western farmers have been fighting since 1950, and that is the principle of the allocation of boxcars to the elevator of the farmers' choice. In the application of the shipping orders this past winter, this principle has been overlooked. Open shipping Order No. 100 for the loading of tough and damp grain was implemented' in such a manner as to discriminate against this principle. Cars supplied for this shipping order were supplied evenly, so that an elevator at a shipping point which normally enjoys 10 per cent of the market would receive as many oars as one which normally held 50 per cent of the market. This, in effect, prevented farmers from using elevators of their choice; they had to haul grain to elevators which they did not wish to use, and the net result was to prevent the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool from maintaining its normal share of the market. I ask the minister and the government to take action immediately to see to the lifting of restrictions on cars for the Lakehead as they apply to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; that an additional 2,000 boxcars be made available to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool country elevators immediately, and that from here on the application of shipping order be made in such a way that cars are allocated to country elevators in accordance with the normal share of the market of each company and so as to implement the principle of the allotment of cars to the elevators of the farmer's choice.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I should like once again to assure the hon. member that the suggested criticism of the railway companies is misplaced. We have been in touch with the Wheat Board again with regard to this specific matter, 'as we have with regard to many others. Once again, the Wheat Board itself says that no criticism of the railways with respect to the Lakehead movement is justified. The railways are making a special effort to spot cars in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Lakehead terminals in relation to the ability of elevators to unload those cars.
Stocks at the Lakehead have now reached 71 million bushels and we are informed there are sufficient cars on track and in transit to fill the Lakehead terminals by the opening of


navigation. As the terminals fill, the rate at which unloading can occur is reduced due to the extra time required to top up bins containing the various grades of wheat. In view of the extraordinarily serious situation which occurred in the movement of wheat this year and considering the condition of the grain and other factors, it, is not surprising that dislocation occurred from time to time.
I was interested in the hon. member's figures with regard to the allocation of cars, and the figures he quoted with regard to their allocation to the Wheat Pool in particular. I notice he suggested that at one time during the winter the proportion had fallen as low as 48 per cent compared' with last year's 54 per cent. I also noted his indication that at this time the figure has risen to 52 per cent, indicating a fairly significant improvement, and one which I think he should have mentioned as indicating an adjustment as circumstances permitted.
It is rather interesting to observe that as time goes on the problems about which hon. members opposite choose to rail become less and less serious, and their railing becomes less loud. I think the Canadian Wheat Board has done an admirable job in the circumstances of winter in getting grain into position and seeing that grain moves in a fashion appropriate to the demand. I repeat that the Canadian Wheat Board thinks criticism of the railways is not justified.



INDUSTRY-INQUIRY AS TO CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question on March 27 arose from a report prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as a result of the terms of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, which requires reporting by labour unions and corporations with regard to their financial status. This very large and detailed report indicates a rapid growth of corporate concentration in this country. It shows, for example-I have been able to make only a very cursory study in the short period since I raised my question-that K. C. Irving Ltd. interests in New Brunswick include oil and oil refining companies; they own Canada Veneeers Ltd.; they own an important interest in Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation; they own almost completely the New Brunswick Railway Company; they hold a very important share of Ocean Finance Limited; Ocean Steel
March 31, 1969	COMMONS
and Construction Limited and a number of pulp and paper companies.
An article appeared in, I think the Toronto Telegram, the other day written by a columnist not unknown to members of this house, Dalton Camp. He was discussing a resolution adopted in the other place and proposed by a former national organizer of the Liberal party, Senator Davey. A committee was appointed to look into the single ownership of virtually all English speaking newspaper, radio and television interests in New Brunswick. By whom? By K. C. Irving. It may not be significant, as Mr. Camp points out, that the only time some people became interested in this control by Mr. Irving was when Mr. Irving started to oppose the Liberal party in New Brunswick. I make this comment as an aside to point out the tremendous influence in the maritimes which Mr. Irving has.
One can look at the interests of a well-known Toronto-or is it now Bahamian?- citizen, Mr. E. P. Taylor, who through his corporation controls a very substantial percentage of the breweries of this country, Dominion stores, Hollinger Gold Mines, B.C. Forest Products, Massey-Ferguson, Standard Radio; and I suppose I could go on for the next hour. One could look at another corporation whose name is not unknown to members of this house. I refer to James Richardson and Sons, which controls or has a controlling interest in several companies. They are: North American Elevators, Intercolonial Trading, Pioneer Grain, Valley Investments, and so on. All this has been documented in the book to which I referred, "Intercorporate Ownership", prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The questions which I tried to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) was whether his department was using this information and studying this material to see whether the kind of growth, the kind of gobbling up of companies which is going on by the large corporations of this country is, first of all, in conflict with the anti-combines laws of this country. After all, it was a Liberal government 50 years or more ago which first introduced the anti-combines legislation. It has not been very successful, but are those laws being breached through those corporate mergers, and if they are, is the government proposing new legislation?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Are we, through these corporate mergers, getting more and more administered prices,
DEBATES	7353
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion prices fixed not by supply and demand, not by the cost, but simply on the basis of what the owners, managers and directors of these corporations feel the traffic will bear? Are we paying more for pulp and paper where there has been no competition for some 50 years? Are we paying more for oil and for minerals than we ought to pay? These are the questions which this report poses in much greater detail and in much stronger language than anything which I or any member of the party which I represent has done in the past. It seems to me that the members of this house and of the public are entitled to know in the very near future if not tonight what the government proposes to do in this field.
There is one last point I wish to make. This report, extensive as it is, does not tell the people of Canada who in fact owns these corporations. It only makes clear that many of the holdings are in the names of other people. There are nominee companies, and we do not know who the actual owners are. Are we going to get the kind of law, and when are we going to get it, such as they have in the United States which will require both public and private corporations to state who owns them, what their assets and their worth are, what their profits are and what profits they are making in terms of percentage on investment? These are questions which are of vital importance to the people of Canada and to which we cannot get any answers until the government brings in legislation. I think we are entitled to know when we are going to get that kind of legislation.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The publication of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to which reference has been made consists of data which corporations with revenues above $500,000 or assets above $250,000 are required to file under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. Copies of these corporate returns are always kept on file in the corporations branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and are available for inspection by the public. Thus, the new D.B.S. publication which is based on 1965 data does not reveal any essentially new facts. It provides an analysis and makes the information more readily available to the public.
Officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have made use of this information for purposes of a general merger inquiry and also for a study of concentration
7354	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of ownership in Canadian manufacturing industries. Both of these studies are described by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act in his annual report for 1968. The information is also used by departmental officials from time to time in the course of other inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act.
The subject of the concentration of ownership and control of Canadian industry is one of the matters to which the Economic Council of Canada must necessarily be giving attention pursuant to the reference made by the government to the Council, asking for a study
DEBATES	March 31, 1969
of and appropriate recommendations relating to competition policy in Canada.
The report of the Economic Council is expected by the middle of this year. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not intend to introduce any legislation relating to competition policy in general or to concentration of control of industry in Canada in particular, until he has had the benefit of the advice of the Economic Council, and the opportunity to give it careful study.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Tuesday, April 1, 1969