1969-11-07

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to inform hon. members that on occasions when copies of Hansard, Votes and Proceedings or the order paper are not received from the Queen's Printer by our joint distribution branch by one o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday, delivery will then be made directly to members' offices rather than to their mail boxes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know Friday is not usually a day for disturbing the House of Commons, but this is a very serious point of order. As I understand the order of business for today, in a few minutes we shall begin the debate on second reading of Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land. Copies of this bill were distributed this morning. I received a copy yesterday because, after the government House leader said that it would likely come up, I asked for and received a copy. This bill contains 44 clauses and copies of it were distributed only this morning. After we have finished the routine which we go through every day the opposition will be asked to discuss intelligently the question of expropriation on second reading of a bill containing 44 clauses.
With the greatest respect, I say this is further evidence that the government does not want Parliament and does not want an opposition. This is proof of it. This bill is one of the most important measures facing Canadians since it involves their civil rights in respect of owning property. Yet we are being asked to debate a bill containing 44 clauses which was delivered only this morning. Surely this place can arrange its business a little better. If the Prime Minister considers Parliament
to be a nuisance and believes we are nobodies, if he does not want Parliament at all, why does he not get up and say, "Let us dissolve Parliament", because we have a dictatorship in Canada now.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am not really in a position to control the publication and delivery of bills. I should like to bring out the fact that this bill is not exactly strange to the hon. gentleman. It was in fact before the House in the last session. Second, notice of this bill was given and in fact first reading was given earlier.
I can only apologize to the hon. gentleman if he does not have a copy available. I indicated privately and publicly to House leaders earlier and again yesterday that this would be the business to be called. The first indication we on this side of the House had that any hon. gentleman had an objection was when the hon. member got to his feet. I regret the circumstances, but at least from the standpoint of the government it seems to me our conduct has not been unreasonable.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Edmonton West rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No, Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to say, with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North that I understand there may have been some delay in distributing the bills caused by the fact that some 100 or more bills were sent for printing and had to be distributed thereafter. To the extent that the administration of the House is at fault, there will be an effort made to correct the situation in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I say with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that my comment was not a criticism of the administration of the House or of Parliament but a criticism of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They do not want criticism.

November 7, 1969
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can only reiterate that to the extent that the administration is at fault we will try to correct the situation in the future. We realize that at the start of a session some difficulty is always caused when there are 100 or more bills which have to be printed and distributed. I may say that as soon as bills receive first reading in the House they will be distributed to hon. members. So perhaps we can prevent in the future a repetition of the situation with which we are faced this morning.



PRIVILEGE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege which also affects a number of my colleagues on this side of the House. I have not raised the matter with the Minister of Finance before because it did not come to my attention until very recently. I am referring to the arrangements for this afternoon with regard to the presentation and study of the white paper on taxation, according to which hon. members who wish to have a look at the document before it is tabled by the minister will be confined in a room. Unfortunately, this has certain connotations for those members of the House who are former members of the Privy Council and are still under then-oath. They are entitled to the information but they are still bound by their oath and should not be bound by additional restraint. Therefore alternative arrangements should be made for those members of the House who are Privy Councillors so they will not be so restricted. They are bound as members of the Privy Council to their oath of secrecy, just as the minister is, and I am sure they are fully cognizant of their responsibilities.
I raise this point not in criticism but to draw it to the attention of the House and also to preserve the privilege of Privy Councillors.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that, at some urging from the opposition for the first time in history with respect to tax matters hon. members will be able to see the document involved before it is actually presented to the House.
With respect to the distribution of the document to Privy Councillors, I wish to point out to my hon. friend that with one or two

exceptions I have not even distributed the document to the present members of the cabinet.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is no excuse.


Mr. Baldwin:: You have some leaky colleagues over there, anyway.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Clermont (Gatineau).
[English\
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to call the attention of the House to the presence in your gallery of Mr. and Mrs. Henri Labouisse. Mr. Labouisse is the Executive Director of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. Mr. Labouisse will be remembered by many as a distinguished member of the United States diplomatic service. Perhaps I might also remind the house that Mrs. Labouisse is the former Eve Curie whose mother was famous for her contributions to humanity so well remembered in the famous biography.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN FARMERS WITH UNTHRESHED CROPS

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, unfavourable weather conditions in western Canada have resulted in a complete stoppage of harvest operations in the Peace River district of both Alberta and British Columbia, in areas of central Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and to a limited extent in parts of Manitoba.
In the Peace River district very few farmers have harvested more than 20 per cent of their crops.
November 7, 1969	COMMONS
The largest amount of unharvested crop is in Alberta where approximately 5,635,000 acres of wheat, oats, barley and rye remain standing or in the swath, and an additional
435,000	acres of flax and 375,000 acres of rapeseed have yet to be harvested.
In Saskatchewan there are some 3,000,000 acres remaining to be harvested while in Manitoba there are about 350,000 acres still to be threshed. In total some 10,000,000 acres of western crops may remain in the fields over winter to be harvested in the spring.
It is estimated that some 25,000 farmers have been affected by the inclement weather conditions and as a result find themselves in financial difficulties. Many of these farmers would now be entitled to assistance under the PFAA crop insurance and advance payments programs had they been able to harvest their crop in a normal manner.
To meet this condition the government therefore proposes to take the following steps to accelerate the provision of assistance to farmers in western Canada with unthreshed crops:
1.	In areas where in the opinion of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration potential yields of unthreshed crops are such that producers would qualify for some measure of assistance regardless of a possible spring harvest, there will be an assessment of possible yields and interim payments made to those who qualify for same. These payments will be subject to final adjustment after harvest is completed in the spring.
2.	The Department of Agriculture, through the Prairie Farm Assistance administration, will maintain a close liaison with provincial crop insurance administrators with a view to providing interim indemnity payments to farmers whose potential yields are estimated to be such as will fall below insured levels when crops are threshed in the spring.
3.	Legislation will be brought forward to provide for cash advances on unthreshed grain similar to those provided for with respect to threshed grain under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister was kind enough to hand me a copy of his remarks as I was coming into the House a few moments ago. May I at once say that in so far as the third suggestion is concerned regarding legislation to provide for cash advances on unthreshed grain similar to those provided for threshed grain under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, it commands support.
DEBATES	637
Assistance to Western Grain Farmers This is something that I and other members have pressed for, and I compliment the government for proceeding in this regard. It is something that is going to cover a present position of affairs that has required, as I have described it, emergency action in order to place money in the hands of the western farmers at the earliest possible date.
In regard to the first two steps proposed, in effect what will be done is that in those areas in which the yields may be anticipated to be such that they will qualify under one or more of the categories for payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, then in co-operation with the authorities of PFAA and in close liaison with provincial crop authorities advances will be made of part of that to which, under ordinary circumstances, the individual would have become entitled.
These things are beneficial and will bring moneys into the hands of the western farmers at a time when, because of inability to sell our wheat abroad, sales are almost impossible for the average farmer except within the quota limitations, and then only provided there is space to store the grain.
e (11:20 a.m.)
This brings me to a suggestion that I should like to place before the minister as part of the general pattern. I refer to the need to assure western farmers that moneys required to harvest the remaining 375,000 acres of rapeseed will be forthcoming. As has been pointed out to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), when rapeseed is actually placed on the premises for cleaning it is not taking up space that should be available for wheat. I therefore find it difficult to understand why Canadian Northern Seeds Limited, a company which has been selling rapeseed abroad and has markets all over the world which in no way interferes with storage, has been denied the right to take rapeseed from thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the order made by the Wheat Board is completely arbitrary, unjustified and should be repudiated. The Wheat Board might lose face as a result of a change but it would mean that tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars would be available to the farmers of Saskatchewan who are producing rapeseed. It would gain markets abroad and bring in foreign exchange. Knowing the interest of the minister in agriculture, and I say that without any intention to flatter, I suggest to him that
November 7, 1969

Assistance to Western Grain Farmers before he leaves on his trip to Rome in connection with agricultural matters he should remedy the defect which prevents Saskatchewan farmers from selling their rapeseed in this manner, which would not interfere, directly or indirectly, with elevator space used for wheat and other crops. The matter has been before the government. It was presented with the support of the government of Saskatchewan but apparently the Wheat Board is standing firm. It should be made known to them that the order is directly contrary to the wishes and desires of the western farmer.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has put before the House the program which the government intends to follow in this very serious situation. Within its limits it is a workable program, but I am afraid it will fall far short of meeting the needs of other types of farming. For instance, it says nothing about assistance in providing livestock feed in the area concerned. From the information I have been able to gather it appears that because of wet weather farmers have been unable to gather the feed necessary to carry their livestock through the winter, and in this part of the prairies there is a significant concentration of livestock. I strongly urge the minister to address himself to this problem as I doubt very much that the farmers, of themselves and by themselves, can meet the situation. The last thing we want to happen is a reduction of hogs and, more particularly, cow-calf herds in that area. This is a very important matter.
I think action should be taken to ensure, with the co-operation of the grain companies, that drying facilities are available in case some of the flax or rapeseed can be taken off the ground. Anyone who knows anything about rapeseed no doubt realizes that if the seed stays outside all winter it will be ruined by the time spring comes. Rapeseed piled in the outdoors will not survive the winter. Flaxseed was showing a 15 per cent moisture content, I believe when tested yesterday. The chances are pretty slim that these grains will dry. I would have been much happier if the minister had said that drying facilities would be set up. Possibly cash advances in addition to the ones contemplated in the program now before us will need to be introduced.
I do not wish to downgrade the program the minister has put in motion, which is similar to existing programs in the form of cash advances, crop insurance and PFAA. Such programs are designed to be of assistance to
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
farmers. Let us not forget that farmers need assistance. The price of farm products has declined and costs of production have gone up to such an extent that the farmer has been caught in a cost-price squeeze and cannot afford to meet the slightest extra cost without the risk of finding himself in deep trouble. I hope the minister will consider these representations.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have just read the statement the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to make here about problems now arising in west Canada in connection with the crop. This is indeed a most trying experience for the 25,000 western farmers, particularly those in the province of Alberta.
I believe the government should take action to assist those western farmers financially, and not let it remain just another plan. We must make haste as expenses are incurred regularly and day by day. Funds must be found to provide the farmers with financial resources, income, in order to meet their commitments.
However, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture could not take the necessary steps to prevent excessive effects on prices of grain for the preparation of mill-feed in the eastern provinces.
The eastern farmers are also experiencing difficulties, and their dairy and production problems as well as others are known to the members of this house.
The federal government will give assistance to the western farmers and I would ask, on behalf of the eastern producers, that the government also take the necessary steps to prevent a possible increase in prices which would be greatly detrimental to the eastern farmers.
I welcome the intended government measures which I feel are timely. The bill concerning subsidies for unthreshed cereals should be introduced-and this is also the minister's opinion-as soon as possible.
As far as we Creditistes are concerned, we can assure the western farmers and the government of our full co-operation.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT


Mr. Barney Danson (York-Norlh) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-146, to amend the Remembrance Day Act.
November 7, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the motive
behind this bill is to make the remembrance of World War II and other wars more relevant to our society today, 24 years after World War II. It is designed to enhance the sanctity of the occasion for those who served and those who were bereaved. Equally important, it is designed to manifest some compassion to our former enemies, more particularly those who are now in Canada, and even more particularly to their children who sometimes grow up in our society with a feeling of guilt about the role their parents played in past wars.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the continued increase in interest rates as reflected by this week's rise to 7.85 per cent on government long-term obligations in the face of the government's monetary restraints indicate that any changes in these restraints or other measures taken by the government in combating inflation will have to be reviewed if we are to see a ceiling or some sort of control imposed on interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: As
my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, our policies in this regard are continually under review.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Does the statement by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission made yesterday in a speech for delivery in Montreal, indicating a study by the commission of specific price increases, mean that the commission will assume the role of a prices review board? Does this indicate a change in the government's thinking with regard to the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker; as I have stated many times, the commission is acting on the authority it has received from Parliament.
21362-41J
DEBATES	639
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There has been an indication by the commission of a purely voluntary approach and that it would not conduct a study into specific prices as though it were a review board. However, the statement yesterday does make that suggestion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because the commission is independent from the government it is using various ways and approaches to control inflation. It may be that the statement to which the hon. member is referring, of which I have no knowledge, indicates a change of tactics or strategy by the commission. The hon. member asked if it indicated a change in the government's approach, and my answer is no. We consider the commission to be acting under its own steam.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say when hon. members will be able to find out whether a prices review board will be constituted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not in a position to say when.


FLAX-REPORTED LACK OF SUPPLIES FOR EXPORT
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. In view of reports that supplies of flax for export were not available at the Lakehead during the October to November shipping period, can the minister assure the House that steps have been taken to ensure that supplies will immediately be moved into position at the Lakehead?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated to the House on a previous occasion that the Wheat Board has given high priority to the movement of flax into position and that on the basis of information I had, flax was flowing to meet the demand there.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister without Portfolio if the chain of responsibility of the companies concerned, other than permission by the Wheat Board, has been clearly established?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure I understand the real import of that question, Mr. Speaker.

November 7, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: A sup- speeches or let us know their thoughts. I was plementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any surprised that in the debate which just ended instructions been issued to elevator companies there were not very many constructive requiring them to have space available for suggestions on this topic; however, members marketable grain such as flax and rapeseed? may have some ideas.


Otto Emil Lang: That is a pretty broad question. I do not know whose instructions are being referred to, but I will certainly investigate whether any instructions have been given by the Wheat Board in this regard.


John Leroy Skoberg: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has assumed any responsibility in this regard or whether he is leaving it up to the elevator companies?


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister determined from his examination of the situation whether in fact flax orders were shifted from Canada to the United States, and has his investigation of the situation led to the conclusion that flax should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: With regard to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, my investigations are not complete. With regard to the second part, this is a broad question which indeed does deserve and may well be the subject of further consideration by the House later this year.


INFORMATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the report of the task force on information to which the Prime Minister has made reference in the House recently. Would the Prime Minister consider having the task force report sent to a House committee for study and recommendation, thereby helping the government in formulating its policy on this very important but potentially dangerous course of action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I tabled the task force report, the government intends to make a statement on its own policy before the end of the year. If the House wants to examine the report in a committee, of course we could consider this. Another way of proceeding would be for the members who have constructive ideas on the subject to make


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I cannot reflect upon the right hon. gentleman's lack of taste or otherwise. In the meantime and in accordance with its proclamations of austerity, has the government decided to put a freeze on the hiring of information and public relations officers for the staffs of individual ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this particular aspect of a freeze has not been the object of any government announcement, but I confess to the House that in our view information is perhaps the most important single subject which is facing not only this government but all governments in Canada. We intend to do as much as we can to correct the lack of proper information available to the people of Canada so that they will know they live in a federal state and that the federal government is very much present in their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncion):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware that the Air Transport Association of Canada has charged that the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is not enforcing its own regulations, orders and directions, and that the association has passed an unprecedented vote of non-confidence in the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the form in which the question is asked. The hon. member is simply asking whether the minister is aware of a certain situation. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister ol Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it and in fact have already discussed it with the officials, including the chairman of the Air Transport Association. I think perhaps there was a certain amount of misunderstanding on both sides. The difficulty appears to have arisen because of an inadequacy in some of the older legislation having to do with the
November 7, 1969

establishment of the new Air Transport Committee. This has now been rectified and I believe the members of the association are satisfied that within a comparatively short time these anomalies will be ironed out. We shall undertake to do this because I believe there are legitimate grounds for some of the complaints which were made at the convention.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Will the minister be bringing down new legislation so as to make these regulations enforceable and, if so, when may it be expected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member may recall that legislation was passed at the end of last session; the changes have already been made in the legislation to take care of the anomalies. However, it is now necessary to bring the provision into line with the old regulations of the former Air Transport Board.


RAPESEED-DENIAL TO FIRM OF RIGHT TO PURCHASE
John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It has to do with the matter to which I referred a few moments ago, namely, a direction from the Wheat Board to Joe Caplan, who operates a seed firm, denying him the right to purchase rape-seed although he has orders from abroad and his elevator does not come within the definition of an elevator under the law as it now stands and could not, therefore, be used for the storage of wheat or interfere with wheat storage elsewhere. I know the minister's own feelings on this subject; he is from Saskatchewan. What has the minister to say as to the reason for this most unconscionable order by the Wheat Board which is preventing thousands of farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has asked his question now and the minister could reply.


Otto Emil Lang: I think an accurate statement of the facts would in itself be a good part of the answer to this question. I am very sympathetic to the movement of this grain, as I am to the movement of all others. The truth of the matter is that the Wheat Board has in no way impeded the delivery on quota of rapeseed by farmers to Mr. Caplan. What it is resisting is the granting of a special off-quota privilege
Inquiries of the Ministry which would prejudice farmers who are not able to avail themselves of this privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not the minister's view the other day. But if this is so, why are the crushing plants in Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Nipawin and Altona allowed to do so over the quota? Surely the minister intends to start looking after the interests of the western farmers.


Otto Emil Lang: That is indeed the intention not only of the minister but of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has expressed its intention to withdraw from all passenger services and thereby withdraw from carrying out the obligation which it undertook to the people of Canada in return for large grants of land and money to set up the corporation, would the minister and the government consider demanding that the railway system give back to the people of Canada the land and the money grants made to them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that proposal.


David Lewis: Would the minister tell the House now whether he is prepared to consider it favourably or whether he thinks that was merely a funny answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AT HEARINGS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: wonder whether I might ask the following question, Mr. Speaker. It was touched upon yesterday but the minister was not in the House. Since the Canadian Transport Commission is a quasi-judicial body which has responsibility for transport generally, and since the railway will be represented when the latest proposals by Canadian Pacific are being considered by that body, will the minister consider having the government of

November 7, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada, which represents the people, represented by counsel in order that not only the position of the railways but the interests of the people can be made clear before the commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would be glad to consider that suggestion but I believe the procedures are well established under the act. There is ample opportunity for representations to be made by all parties. In any event, should the decision of the CTC be challenged by any authority, then there is a right to appeal to the Governor in Council.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but in view of the fact that railway law and railway economics are difficult subjects and subjects upon which railway counsel are well briefed, would the minister not agree that it is costly to retain the services of the right kind of experts and counsel, for which reason it is important that the government should be represented at this hearing in order that the public interest might be protected?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary is a repetition of his earlier question, put in an argumentative way.


PROVINCIAL CENTENNIALS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Taking into account the announcement that the federal government is making a $5 million grant toward Manitoba's centennial celebrations, can the Prime Minister indicate whether similar consideration will be given in the case of British Columbia's centennial celebrations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know of any request having been made yet by the province of British Columbia, but when we were discussing the grant to Manitoba several ministers from British Columbia did raise that question with me. I answered then, as I answer the hon. member now, that if we receive such a request we shall, of course, consider it very carefully. It may be that British Columbia, because it has benefited so much from confederation and because it is so generous, will decide to send money to Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services; I have given the hon. gentleman notice. Did anyone consult with the city of Sarnia or the province of Ontario before Polymer Corporation was removed from the scope of the Government Companies Operation Act, bearing in mind the fact that a change in the distribution of $1 million in municipal tax money is involved?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt as to the admissibility of this question. The hon. member is asking whether the minister consulted with anyone in connection with this situation. However, the hon. gentleman may wish to reply.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am able to advise him that the removal of Polymer Corporation from under the Government Companies Operation Act was not a matter which required consultation with the city of Sarnia or with the province of Ontario, and that to the best of my knowledge no consultation took place.
I might add by way of explanation that as an agent of the Crown, Polymer paid the City of Sarnia a grant in lieu of tax equal to the assessment which would have been payable had it been an ordinary commercial corporation. I understand that the amount in lieu of tax in 1968 was approximately $825,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reply given by the minister confirms my original thought that the question should have been placed on the order paper.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Gerald William Baldwin: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Since it has been alleged that the Economic Council of Canada has been requested to cut back expenditure on the engagement of outside consultants, can the minister assure the House that the government does not intend to interfere with the effectiveness of such bodies as the Economic Council of Canada and the office of the Auditor General?
November 7, 1969


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government is anxious and indeed eager to see that the Economic Council of Canada is as productive and useful as it can be. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that there have to be limits placed on attempts to do all the good things we want to do right here and now. The Economic Council of Canada has accepted the fact that it is not possible right now to achieve all the things it would like to achieve.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question in relation to the last part of my original question. In view of the fact that substantial salary increases have been and are being given to senior officers in departments and government institutions is it the intention of the government to introduce a proposal for a comparative increase in the salary of the Auditor General, an officer of this House and Parliament?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Consideration will be given to that, Mr. Speaker.


PESTICIDES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the statement he made in the House on November 3 concerning restrictions on the use of DDT. In view of the fact that Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has called for public tenders for the purchase of 5,000 DDT bombs and 500 pounds of pesticides, the reason for the sale being the high content of DDT, will the Prime Minister request the Minister of Supply and Services to withdraw this call for tenders and have the materials returned to the manufacturer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might rephrase my question. What the government is doing is in direct contradiction of the statement made in the House a few days ago. I request your indulgence and I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services whether they will consider withdrawing this call for public tenders on this product the government intends to ban?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will discuss the matter with the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


NICKEL-EFFECT OF STRIKE ON EXPORTS
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell the House what is the over-all decline in our nickel exports as a result of the strike at the International Nickel Company of Canada, and will he indicate how much in the way of permanent markets we are likely to lose as a result?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question asks for detailed information which should not normally be either asked for or given at this time. The second part of the question may be in order, but only to the extent that the hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement on motions. He may want to reply to that part of the question.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Should I make a statement on it, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not my job to answer questions.


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the question I intend to put to the congenial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be in order. In view of impending meetings in the United States with a view to removing from the U.S.-Canada car pact certain beneficial protections as far as Canada is concerned, will the minister assure the House that he will not endorse or condone the removal of these protective features?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think this would be the proper approach. In conversations of this kind I think you must stand on principles that you think are worthwhile, but you should be flexible, also open to suggestions for improvements.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is it the intention of the minister to agree to having original replacement parts incorporated in the agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This might be part of the conversations. I want to repeat that I treat the whole thing very seriously, and I consider

November 7, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry that the safeguards that are in the present agreement are very important as far as Canada is concerned. I will not let them go easily; you can be sure of that.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's brilliantly consistent record of failure to obtain automobile price parity between the United States and Canada, will the minister agree that Canadians are likely to obtain price parity and lower prices for automobiles only by following the suggestion made yesterday by Dennis McDermott, Canadian director of the United Automobile Workers of America, that unions must begin to negotiate such prices with the company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument rather than a question.


NATURAL GAS
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has been advised of the very substantial discovery by the Panarctic consortium in the Arctic and, if so, is he in a position to advise us as to the nature and the extent of the same?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I shall answer that question. It is true that on Wednesday a substantial discovery was made, at a depth of 3,600 feet, of a gas field of a capacity of 10 million cubic feet per day. Had this discovery been made in Alberta its importance would have been all the greater. But, as it has taken place in the Arctic, its importance is lessened although this discovery does prove that the government's investment in Panarctic consortium was justified.


TAXATION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what arrangements have been made to distribute extra copies of the white

paper in light of the great interest shown in western Canada by the mining and oil industries?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in light of the great interest shown by everyone in the white paper, individual single copies are available free of charge to anyone who writes to my office.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not complete my answer. I should also have pointed out that copies of the white paper on taxation will be available at all district taxation offices from six o'clock till nine o'clock tonight and again on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: They have already got them? They are subject to secrecy.


FISHERIES
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and his pinchhitter, perhaps I should direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government to give any consideration to the request made by the Lake Ontario fisheries committee to extend lamprey control operations to the waters of Lake Ontario?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that this question is brought to the attention of the minister.


Percy Verner Noble: Perhaps I should direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government made any investigation to determine whether lampricide used in the lamprey control program is making any significant contribution toward pollution?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that the supplementary question should normally be answered by way of a statement.


POST OFFICE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the news release issued last night outside the House by the Postmaster General indicating that letter carrier delivery in
November 7, 1969

urban areas will be made on three Saturdays in December and will cost $350,000 per day, will the Minister of Finance tell the House whether it is a fact that failure to provide letter carrier delivery on the other 49 Saturdays in the year will save the treasury $17,150,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.


POLLUTION
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. John's East asked me whether or not the break-up, as he termed it, of a loaded tanker off the coast of New England posed a pollution threat to Canada. I investigated the matter immediately and found that this disaster happened southeast of Nantucket, several hundred miles south of Canada's shoreline. The best information of the scientists is that the normal tides and currents will dissipate any pollution and there will be no threat to Canadian shores as a result of this disaster.


HOUSING
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. It arises from his statement in response to a question on October 28 as to when there would be a removal of the freeze on urban renewal. He said at that time that if the Leader of the Opposition would try to be patient he would try to make a statement during the next few days. In British Columbia we are not used to such long periods of freezing, and I should like to ask the minister when this statement will be made and when the next few days will be over.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board in an attempt to assist him in making
Inquiries of the Ministry some of the constituents of the Solicitor General happy this weekend. Has the President of the Treasury Board received a lawyer's letter about the delay in payment of retroactive wages to civil servants, and what action does he plan to relieve the hardship to many people?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter from the legal representative of the Professional Institute of the Public Service. It has been forwarded to the law officers of the Crown for advice. I should point out that we have been taking and are continuing to take massive action to try to overcome the very large problem created by this backlog of retroactive pay. As I indicated to the House before, in each individual case of reconciliation of accounts going back to July 1, 1967 (here is a great deal of clerical work required in the departments and in the Central Pay Office. It is this complicated one-time operation we are trying to get over.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board what he thinks of a meeting on this matter with the legal officer such as has been suggested?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Highly.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last Friday I asked the Minister of Finance a question concerning a report that life insurance coverage for the Canadian Armed Forces to the value of between $1 billion and $2 billion had been acquired by a non-Canadian company. I trust the minister will have his reply available today.


Edgar John Benson: have taken up this matter with the Minister of National Defence. He is to supply me with information in this regard. It is not, as I understand it, a matter of the government being engaged in giving insurance to this company but rather it is a matter of the employees carrying additional insurance through the company. The Minister of National Defence is looking into the matter.

November 7, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


WHEAT-SHIPMENTS FROM VANCOUVER DURING STRIKE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. Can the minister tell the House the amount of wheat that has actually been moved through the port of Vancouver since the beginning of the longshoremen's strike, and whether the volume has been normal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information. This is the type of question which should not normally be asked at this time.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that Christmas is only 48 days away, may I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister hopeful that a decision regarding pension increases for federal superannuates will be made in time so that these people might enjoy a happier Christmas than is in prospect for some of them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the hon. gentleman knows I am always full of hope.


Thomas Miller Bell: Like Scrooge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? I should like to ask him whether he is hopeful that something might be done to increase the pensions of retired employees of the CNR, also before Christmas.


An hon. Member:: Are you full of hope, too?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, and more of it.


NICKEL-EFFECT OF STRIKE ON DOMESTIC ECONOMY AND EXPORTS
Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which bears some slight relationship to a previous question. I trust you, sir, will find my question more acceptable. I should like to remind Your

Honour and members of the House that we in this country have other important export commodities besides wheat and grain, about which we hear so much. Can the minister advise the House concerning what initiative has been taken or what can be done to encourage the resolution of another serious situation. I refer to the prolonged strike at the International Nickel Company and the increasingly adverse effect of it on our domestic industrial economy as well as on our export position with regard to the production and supply of nickel.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question as asked by the hon. member is somewhat more regular than the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary. The minister might try to reply to both questions at the same time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the labour aspect of this problem is not under my jurisdiction or for that matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So my contribution, I am sorry to say is limited to prayers.
With regard to the other aspect of the question, concerning the influence the strikes in the nickel, copper and steel industries have had on the exports of Canada, I have a figure but I hesitate to put it on record because it may well be that once the strikes are solved the companies will pick up in their operations and exports will increase sharply.
However, there are other aspects of this question. The price of these metals has gone up and substitution of sources might be taking place. Other countries are developing mines for nickel and copper which might not have been developed had Canada been in a position to fill the requirements. All these aspects are terribly important, but again I hesitate to give a figure in respect of the damage the strikes have caused to our export position because, as I said, some of it may be picked up in the future.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider placing an embargo on the export of scrap copper in order to relieve this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is this scrap copper, nickel, or what?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Copper chiefly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand this is beneficial to Canada at this time. Some of this scrap-
November 7, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -is being imported in Canada. This might have changed, I will check and report back. I said "scrap", Mr. Speaker.


TAXATION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up a question I asked the Prime Minister yesterday. I asked him whether he would check to see if there were any leaks in respect of the briefing on the white paper. Can he advise us now how many copies of the white paper have been handed out, in whose hands they are, and in fact whether there have been any leaks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have made the check, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance may wish to give his own reply.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, copies of the white paper were not distributed. As you know, the members of the press are locked up in a room and will have copies of the white paper in their hands. Also as is usual, sealed bundles have been sent across the country. In the past we have sent these to the branches of the Bank of Canada. In this instance we sent them to the district taxation offices. They are sealed and will not be opened until six o'clock tonight. As for distribution among members of the government, I think I have given a copy of the white paper to two of my cabinet colleagues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are these people in the department who have received the sealed packages under oath to keep secret or are you just depending on their good behaviour to not disclose anything?


Edgar John Benson: In the Department of National Revenue, all employees are under oath. I, of course, told them to keep this secret until six o'clock and I believe they will do so. We have never in the past had a leak in sending such documents to the Bank of Canada offices. This has been done for a great many years.


SASKATCHEWAN PLAN TO BARTER WHEAT FOR MACHINERY
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the 21362-421
DEBATES	647
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government decided whether it will allow the type of barter plan being promoted by the province of Saskatchewan involving the exchange of Japanese electric generators for Saskatchewan wheat? Also can the minister inform the House whether other countries have made inquiries about the possibility of barter arrangements since the suggestion of the Saskatchewan-Japanese arrangement was first raised?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think the government of Canada can prevent the province of Saskatchewan from buying wheat from the Wheat Board at the regular prices and bartering with it. I believe any individual or even the provincial leader could do this.
I have been almost tangling with both the former prime minister of Canada and the Premier of Saskatchewan on this subject. This is very daring on my part. I have been trying to show the disadvantages of this operation in terms of co-operation between exporters-countries, in terms of the jeopardizing of a number of markets which are cash markets at this time, and in terms of the damage this might do to the other sectors of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister as we will be running short of time soon.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister saw fit to mention me in his answer. Let me ask him this, is it a fact that, as stated by the premier of Saskatchewan, the minister is 90 per cent opposed to any action in this regard that would remove a great deal of wheat from the province of Saskatchewan? What is his position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister may be allowed to reply, but I thought the hon. gentleman was asking for statistical information.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just trying to be helpful. When the hon. member for Prince Albert went west this summer he said himself that there were major difficulties to bear in mind. I have been spelling out what the difficulties were.


John George Diefenbaker: How long?

November 7, 1969
Expropriation LABOUR RELATIONS


LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO CASUAL WORKERS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: This question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but perhaps it may be taken as notice by his parliamentary secretary if he is not in a position to answer at the moment. Has the minister reconsidered the decision to deny unemployment insurance benefits to those casuals employed on the British Columbia waterfront in longshoring who had no part in the decision to strike and who have been, at least up until now, considered ineligible for B.C. welfare benefits on the grounds that they have unemployment insurance stamps in their books?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the attention of the minister on that question so he may give his answer the next time he is in the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was first introduced in the House during the last session of parliament as Bill C-200 on May 23. It is designed to reform the law relating to the compulsory acquisition or expropriation of land by the federal government and by its agencies. We trust that this comprehensive revision will largely remove the arbitrary features long associated with the existing federal expropriation law. We trust also that it will provide a consistent legislative scheme predicated on an advance notice of intent to expropriate, on a public hearing before expropriation, a prompt offer of payment, revised negotiation procedures, and statutory principles of compensation.
The existing law on the subject is found mainly in the Expropriation Act as it now exists, chapter 106, Revised Statutes of
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
Canada, 1952. It has remained substantially unmodified since its enactment in 1886. Even then, it was not very new since the provisions of the existing law can be traced to earlier public works legislation and to inter-colonial railway legislation.
I suggest to the House, therefore, that there is very little wonder that a law which was drafted and prepared for a primarily agrarian rural society is in its present form, at a time when 80 per cent of Canadians live in the great urban centres of the country, wholly unsuited to the complexities and realities of modern urban life.
When the bill was first introduced in the spring, I made reference to the fact that several provincial governments had reviewed their legislation on expropriation recently. The federal government, in preparing the bill now before the House, owes a good deal to the research made by Chief Justice McRuer and his report, and to the hon. Mr. Clyne of British Columbia and his report. I want to say that the federal government never hesitates to borrow and to adopt the good ideas advanced by the provincial legislatures, and in this instance I think much credit can be attributed to those earlier studies. We feel that in several ways perhaps this bill may be a further improvement.
The legislation, if adopted by the House and by the other place, will apply to all federal departments and to expropriations by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Capital Commission, the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. It will not, however, extend to inter-provincial railways or to private companies under special acts which exercise special expropriation powers. We plan to deal separately with these companies in the future. Obviously, if we had applied this bill to the Canadian National Railways without having corresponding legislation affecting the Canadian Pacific Railway it would not have been a just piece of legislation. We are actively reviewing that particular problem.
Since the bill was introduced, I have had consultations with the Bar across the country and in response to a circular letter which I sent out to members of the Canadian Bar Association I received about 1,700 requests for copies of the bill. In response, the department received hundreds of letters, some detailed, some less detailed, from lawyers across the country who had some expertise in this very complicated area of legislation. Indeed, at the Canadian Bar convention here in Ottawa in
November 7, 1969

September there was a panel on the new bill in which my deputy minister participated, and here again we were able to derive some useful ideas. I expect as well that when the bill is referred, if it is, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, some more useful ideas from all sides of the House will be brought forward.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: May I
ask if the bill in its present form has been amended from the draft that was sent out to the society.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: The hon.
member seems to be somewhat telepathic. I was just going to say yes, it has been amended. There are 11 changes, most of them technical, and we hope technical improvements. None of them affect the principle of the bill.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might just review the highlights of the bill without, I hope, trespassing on the rules of this place by referring to specific clauses. The first amendment of consequence is the introduction of a public notice of intention to expropriate. Under the present law the government can decide to expropriate property without giving any notice of its intention to expropriate to an owner or tenant, and the person whose land or interest is expropriated sometimes learns about it only after expropriation takes place. The new law will require, in advance of any property being taken, that there be publication in a local newspaper of a notice of intention to expropriate, and notification by registered mail to any person whose interest against the property appears in the local registry office. The notice must describe the property to be taken, indicate the public work or purpose for which it is required, and inform all interested persons of their right to object to the intended expropriation. I would hope that in this way the current shroud or curtain of secrecy that surrounds expropriations will be lifted.

As for the second reform, it deals in principle with the holding of a public hearing before the expropriation. The legislation as it stands now, Mr. Speaker, does not grant an owner or a tenant the right to object in law to the expropriation of his property, even if he is always free to complain to his member of parliament once the property has been expropriated.
The new act will give him or any other person the right to appraise the minister con-
E appropriation
cerned of the reasons for his opposition to the expropriation contemplated and to get, either personally or through his lawyer or solicitor, a public hearing to be held by the investigator specially appointed by the Attorney General of Canada for the purpose of looking into objections to expropriations.
The investigator, not a public servant, is required to prepare a report dealing with the objections to the expropriation, and the minister must accept and study that report before confirming his intention to expropriate and before actually expropriating the property.
Furthermore, if the responsible minister decides to expropriate the property, he is required, upon request by the litigant, to supply him with a copy of the investigator's report, and to give him the reasons why he disregarded his objections.
It is especially provided that persons who submit objections will be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses incurred in that connection. However, when expropriation is not carried out, the law provides for a special right to claim compensation, to the extent of any real loss due to the registration of a notice of intent to expropriate in the course of the period during which such notice was effective.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, under the present law a person whose property has been expropriated without notice and without a hearing can be required to give up possession immediately and prior to the payment of any compensation by the government. The new law will provide that following the registration of a notice of confirmation-and this confirmation will effect the actual expropriation or taking, to use the technical term, of the property-each person who is entitled to compensation must be offered, within 90 days of that notice of confirmation, an amount estimated to be his full compensation. This offer must be on an unconditional and without prejudice basis.
The offer so made by the minister must be made in writing, based upon a written appraisal, and a copy of the appraisal must be sent to each person entitled to compensation. Persons receiving such offers will be free to accept them or press for an additional amount in court if they are not satisfied with the amount so offered.


Mr. Brewin:: May I ask what I think is a very fundamental question? I think it is more than a question of detail. Supposing the offer

November 7, 1969
Expropriation
is not accepted, supposing the owner feels the offer is inadequate, is there provision in the statute for any money to be paid to him then, pending disposition of his claim?


John Napier Turner: Then, he can receive all the money and still proceed before the court for the extra amount he feels is his due, and the minister then is bound to make that payment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Following on that may I ask another question? That suggestion is a good one. But if the property owner accepts the money at that stage, is that made known to the court, like tendering money, and if the judgment given is less than the amount offered will the owner have to pay the court costs?


John Napier Turner: The costs might well be discretionary on that basis. If the owner goes to court and gets an award over the amount paid by the minister, then he is entitled to his legal costs as of right, and the minister must pay a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount between his offer and the amount awarded by the court.
On the other hand, let us say the court awards him less than the minister offered. We must remember that it was an unconditional offer, and I suppose he is entitled to retain it, but obviously in such a case the costs would be assessed at the discretion of the court.
Unless there are special circumstances that give rise to an urgent requirement for possession of the property by the government, a minimum of 90 days' notice will have to be given to persons in occupation of expropriated property before the government can take possession from them under the new law, and they must have received an offer of full compensation as described, as a condition of giving up possession to the government. If, however, the government must take possession before the 90 day period has elapsed it will be obliged to pay what might be described as a special compulsory taking allowance, as a kind of penalty for depriving persons of their general right to remain in possession for the minimum 90 day period. The additional amount specified is 10 per cent of the value of the expropriated property.

Fourth, under the present legislation, the government can arbitrarily state, in writing, that it no longer requires a property that was expropriated and that it abandons its rights to it and the registration of such a document

at the Registrar's Office automatically allows the property to be returned to the former owner.
The new legislation will allow the government to abandon an expropriated property only if the former owner chooses to accept the abandonment after receiving a notice indicating the government's intention to abandon its right to the property.
Fifth, we shall inaugurate a new negotiation procedure. The present legislation prescribes no negotiation procedure to help solve disputes concerning compensation. The new legislation entitles the owner or the lessee to cause a negotiator to be appointed, and that negotiator shall not be a civil servant, to inspect the land, the appraisals and other evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to him. The statements made in the course of the negotiations are privileged statements not admissible in judicial proceedings intended to settle the compensation payable.
[English1
Turning now to the principles of compensation, at present the rules that govern the determination of the amount of compensation payable are unstated except in the decided cases. They depend on the rules that have been determined over the years by the courts.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The new law will provide a comprehensive code for determining the compensation payable with the minimum or base amount being, in general, the market value of the property at the time of its taking. Provision is expressly made to compensate for any costs or losses incidental to disturbance, including moving to other premises and for any element of special economic advantage related to occupation or use of the property. Special rules are also included to cover specially designed buildings such as schools, hospitals and religious institutions for which there is no general demand or market. Holders of security interests or mortgage interest are also dealt with specifically.
New principles of compensation have been included to deal with the expropriation of property that was in use as a residence and with the expropriation of leasehold interests. In the case of the expropriation of a residence, the new law will recognize the right of the expropriated person to claim as compensation the cost of relocating his residence in reasonably equivalent premises if the compensation otherwise payable to him is not
November 7, 1969

sufficient to enable him to do this. In the case of a tenant, the length of the term remaining under his lease, his prospect of obtaining a renewal of the lease and his investment in the property, including the nature of any business carried on by him on the premises, will all be taken into consideration in determining the compensation payable to him.
In the matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, the present law provides for interest payable at the statutory 5 per cent. Under the new law, interest will be paid at an economic rate that will fluctuate from time to time and will not be less than the average yield from government of Canada treasury bills.
An hon. member asked about costs. Lawyers in the House are well aware that under the present law a person claiming compensation has no right to claim legal and appraisal costs reasonably incurred in asserting his claim before legal proceedings are commenced. Those are costs for an appraisal and legal fees spent by him or incurred by him to evaluate his property. The new law will also provide that legal and appraisal costs reasonably incurred in asserting a claim for compensation will be paid as well as any court costs awarded if legal proceedings are commenced.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister another question?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Could the minister state
whether these costs will be paid before or after expropriation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the bill is that the legal and appraisal costs incurred before negotiation relate to the unconditional offer. Costs of legal proceedings will be awarded as of right or by discretion at the time judgment is given.
Under the new law a claimant will be entitled as of right to have the whole of his court costs paid by the government where the amount awarded to him exceeds the amount of compensation offered by the government, and in any other case, the awarding of court costs will be in the discretion of the court. It will, therefore, be seen that the new law will make provision for the payment of costs at three stages, namely, the pre-expropriation stage when objection can be taken to the expropriation itself, the negotiation stage following upon the confirmation of an intent to expropriate, and the litigation stage to which
Expropriation
resort may be had in the event that a negotiated settlement cannot be achieved. Mr. Speaker, those are the general principles of the bill.
As I stated in a speech before the Canadian Bar Association, and some members of the House were present, during the time I am permitted to hold this portfolio we will have three main objectives. The first is, within the federal sphere, to move as far as we can toward equality of access and equality of treatment before the law for rich and poor alike. The second is to move toward a more contemporary criminal law, one that is enforceable, flexible and compassionate.
The final objective is to achieve a better balance between the right of the ordinary citizen and the government.
It is to the first and third objectives that the present bill is directed. As the administrative arm of the state increases its influence over our social values, our lives and our goals, more and more people in this country demand greater protection from the abuses of the administrative process. This Parliament is making an effort to achieve this goal. I hope the report of the House committee on statutory instruments will result in parliamentary review of regulations. Within the government we shall re-examine the enabling powers given to the ministers and before the session is over we hope to introduce a new reform of administrative law, providing the courts with wider powers of Judicial review of the decision of administration.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I believe this new expropriation bill strikes a blow for individual rights against arbitrary state power. Canadian citizens will have the right to participate in a process which in the past has been denied. The fact that government is powerful and remote must not and should not dwarf individual rights. This expropriation bill with its guarantees of the individual's right to notice, right to a hearing, right to negotiation, right to appeal and minimum compensation, will enhance the power of the individual against the state.
Mr. Speaker, as I said when this bill was first introduced, it is a citizens' bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I should like to thank the minister for outlining the purpose of the new expropriation bill and stating the high aims of the department under his direction in the weeks and months, maybe even years ahead.

November 7, 1969
Expropriation
I have a little article which appeared on October 13 in the Palo Alto Times in San Francisco which pretty well describes the situation in the past regarding expropriation in the United States, but I am sure it applies equally in Canada. I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, whether we have really measured up to the high aims of the minister. This is an article by Dennis Tristram concerning expropriation from the average man who waits years for compensation and in the meantime has to pay for his appraiser's report and a lawyer to plead in a very academic court, namely the Exchequer Court. This is a parody on a song, and here it is:


An hon. Member:: Sing it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would but I have not got such a nice voice as my friend.
Old McMillan had a farm.
And on that farm he had a lot of things.
He had milk cows here and chickens there and work horses everywhere. With hay fields big and silos full and oink from there and a moo moo here and a moo moo there and everywhere a function and everywhere production, here a function there production. Old McMillan had a farm-
He doesn't any more, just memories and some scattered junk. E-I-E-I-O.
Yes, he had a farm once but now the farm is a freeway. And I think that is really the problem, Mr. Speaker, that in the development of the urban society and specialized living, it is necessary to give the power of expropriation to the government.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I should like to make a few points immediately. Without getting into any particularization, I notice that the sole court mentioned in the bill is the Exchequer Court of Canada and I should like to say something about this provision. However, in doing so I do not want to break confidence arising from a discussion with a member of that court. I am not attacking the court or the personnel of the court, Mr. Speaker but I do say that the Exchequer Court was specially set up to serve the state and, in particular, the Crown. Actually the court functions from Ottawa. When there is a need, its judges from time to time move to the various urban centres of Canada to try cases. Actions which were begun by petition will now be set in motion by the filing of statement of claim. Any litigant who begins an action by filing a statement of claim is usually forced to make various applications under the rules of the Exchequer Court, and I shall have some comments about those rules later in my speech. I say that if the judges

have the right to determine what the rules are, litigants are not being fairly treated.
A litigant in that court may make an application in chambers. He may seek an order permitting him to examine for discovery certain officers of the Crown who otherwise may not be available for discovery. Sometimes departmental officials are not willing to give answers during examinations for discovery, and orders to compel answers are sometimes necessary. Similarly, if it should happen that a departmental official is withholding information, it may be necessary for the litigant to obtain an order from a judge of the court to force the official to provide the necessary information so that counsel can argue the case properly and obtain adequate compensation in law.
My point is this, Mr. Speaker. If a litigant's lawyer has to travel to Ottawa from Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg or the Maritimes, the litigant is put to great expense. If all the litigant's assets are tied up in a piece of land which is to be expropriated by the Crown, say, then, unless he can obtain a lawyer who will work until the compensation is handed down, justice will not be done. The litigant will be unable to retain counsel or pay an appraiser. It is very nice for the minister to write beautiful law into our statute books, but nothing is gained unless each person in our society has an equal opportunity to appear before the courts.
What is the answer to this, Mr. Speaker? Unless the Crown or the state has special reasons for opposing my idea, I do not see why the superior trial courts of all of the provinces should not have concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court deals with matters pertaining to the tax field and I do not think we would destroy the efficiency of that court if we gave the superior courts of our land concurrent jurisdiction with it. Surely, there is nothing wrong with giving all the high courts of each province equal and concurrent jurisdiction. The advantages flowing from such equal and concurrent jurisdiction are several. First, all chamber applications can be argued at the situs of the litigant. Second, since a local judge will have a better knowledge of his province and community and will no doubt know something of the land or local matter in question, he will be able to use his environmental knowledge to better interpret the law for the benefit of the litigant. For example, a judge residing in Calgary or Edmonton would know more about problems associated with national parks, and how to
November 7, 1969

value that unique land which might be the subject matter of an Exchequer Court action, than a stranger to the community.
I think the minister is acquainted with Mr. Jack Safian, Q.C., of Regina. I believe Mr. Safian mentioned to the minister at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association his thoughts on this matter. He emphasized that in his view a judge with local knowledge could do a much better job, not only from the point of view of the litigant, but also for the court. Let us set up in this country courts before which all can appear. Let us not set up courts which are so expensive to litigate in that only those with money can afford to retain counsel to argue their cases. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has high ideas about lawyers, and his recent criticisms did not please the bar.
What other advantages would flow from giving our high courts concurrent jurisdiction? At present, if you are not satisfied with an Exchequer Court judgment, you must appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. And may I say this, Mr. Speaker. All lawyers concede that the higher the tribunal before which one pleads, the more courteous is the hearing one receives. No matter whether counsel comes from a village, town or city, the Supreme Court of Canada will invariably grant him a courteous hearing; and for that I commend the court. But, Mr. Speaker, appealing to that court is very expensive. For example, I once considered appealing a case involving compensation. The cost of the evidence alone and of the appeal books was somewhere between $6,000 and $7,000. Of course, counsel fee would have to be added to that sum. In addition, anyone contemplating appealing in Ottawa must retain an agent to file all the necessary documents with the Supreme Court of Canada. If provincial appeal courts were empowered to hear appeals from the Exchequer Courts, litigants could stay in their own province, have their appeals heard by provincial courts of appeal, and save a great deal of money.
I hope the minister is sincere in his intention to give all people equal opportunities to appear before the courts; because, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, at present there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I do not think passage of this bill will remedy that state of affairs.
May I deal now with the question of leases in parks, Mr. Speaker. What are the factors we must consider when studying the question of expropriations in this area? At one time
Expropriation
some of the land in the parks of Canada-and I am dealing with the question of expropriation at this time-was held in fee simple. Other land was held under 99 year leases, and still other land was held under leases in perpetuity. Of course, other land was held with leases to run for a term certain of, say, 42 years, and provision was made for renewal of the lease for certain periods. A big change has taken place in this area, Mr. Speaker. Anyone now wishing to build a hotel or motel to serve the tourist trade must obtain a lease from the government. At the end of 42 years or some other term that person may renew his lease for an additional five or ten years. Nevertheless, at the end of the 42 years or the term certain, title to all the buildings erected on the land reverts to the government, and no compensation is paid.
I studied a lease over the weekend, and what does it say, Mr. Speaker? May I point out that property erected on such leased land often costs between $600,000 and $700,000. Ordinary people may put up, say, $100,000 of their own money and a syndicate may put up the rest. The point is that all this property reverts to the Crown at the expiry of the lease. Clause 16 of the lease I have in my hand reads:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
(1) Where
(a)	any portion of the rent is unpaid for more than thirty (30) days after it becomes due whether formally demanded or not;
(b)	the Lessee fails to perform, observe or keep any of the covenants and agreements herein contained; or-
(c)	the Lessee violates any of the provisions of the National Parks Act

The Minister can on notice, and in some cases without notice, cancel the lease prior to the 42 year term. I will now refer to termination of the lease. This is the important part. It shows us the power of the Crown. Section 23 reads as follows:
On termination of this lease all structures, fixtures and improvements which have been affixed or placed on the land at the expense of the Lessee will become the property of Her Majesty.
Referring back to the other clause, it is easy to determine whether the lessee has paid his rent. Section 16 refers to the lessee failing to perform, observe or keep any of the covenants and agreements, and there are many, but under this document who has the discretion to decide whether he has observed them or not? The Minister has full discretion.
I challenge anyone in Canada to say he knows all the regulations that govern parks.

November 7, 1969
Expropriation
When I was dealing with lawsuits in connection with parks, I had a thick book of regulations. I never did know all the regulations because they were contradictory.
Let's take a look at this lease. It is up to the Minister to determine whether the lessee fails to perform and observe the agreement. What political power does this give to the Minister? The Minister decides whether there has been a breach of the National Parks Act. If he comes to a careful and thoughtful conclusion, using his wise discretion, whether it is political or motivated by some other reason, he can terminate the lease and all the property becomes the property of the state without compensation.
The trouble with this kind of document is that those people who get involved in this type of deal do not understand it until everything has been signed and they have their property worth many thousands of dollars. The Minister said he hoped this new law would serve to protect people against the strong state infringing on the right to own property. I say leases with the Department of Northern Affairs, similar to the one I have been referring to, and possibly other leases, do not allow for any compensation.
This lease might be interpreted differently. If it means something else the Minister should so state. I wish to again read Section 23:
23. On termination of this lease all structures, which have been affixed or placed on the land at the expense of the Lessee will become the property of Her Majesty.
The Minister can cancel this lease on these grounds, which in fact are rather wide. In my opinion, this bill does not remedy that situation and certainly does not give people equal opportunity before the courts. There is still a law for the rich and a law for the poor. This is why I would like to see all courts with concurrent jurisdiction.
I now wish to deal with the Exchequer Court. This is a different type of court to plead in from the high trial courts of the provinces. In order that an action may properly get before the Exchequer Court, counsel must have knowledge and experience in litigation in the Exchequer Court. Exchequer Court judges have their own rules. These rules, as I read them, do not compare to the rules that streamline our courts in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, where I practise, but are more like the English court rules. In fact, if one reads the white book, dealing with the procedure in English courts, he would almost think we had English courts

functioning here in Canada, in the name of the Exchequer Court. This makes it very difficult. It does not facilitate litigation. Highly skilled counsel are required to understand the situation and appear before the Exchequer Court. I believe that unless we change the rules of procedure for government expropriations by giving all courts concurrent jurisdiction, we will not remedy or cure the situation.
I maintain that even though this bill is changing law which has been in force since 1886, it is still not doing much for the average man. The average man will not like it because he cannot afford to take his case to that court. What happens is the Crown makes an offer. The owner must very carefully consider this offer. If he is not satisfied, he knows it will be very costly to bring an action to the Exchequer Court. It will be very costly to him to hire an appraiser. If he loses in the Exchequer Court, it is going to be very costly to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
What happens? The big squeeze by the big state is exerted on the little man and he has to accept the sum of money that is offered, even if it is inadequate. An example of this is the Fraser case which one hon. member knows something about because his father was involved in the litigation. I do not have the exact figures, but the amount awarded by the Exchequer Court was only one-fifth of the amount awarded by the Supreme Court of Canada. In one of my own cases, my clients were offered $13,500 and ended up with over $100,000. If they could not have afforded to litigate and did not have someone to go along with them, they would have had to accept the little handout of $13,500.
If this bill is not changed much from the one I saw previously, and I listened to the lectures of the Canadian Bar Association, then I do not believe it will solve the situation.
I wish to pause here and call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I was dealing with the application of this measure to leases in the national parks, particularly in western Canada. I see
November 7, 19G9

nothing here which provides for compensation upon the cancellation of leases granted in respect of land upon which hotels and motels are built.
The section of the act in question says that if any portion of the rent is unpaid for 30 days, a formal demand having been made, or if the lessee fails to perform any convenant in the agreement, or if he breaks any of the park regulations, the minister may terminate the lease. It is the minister who decides. He is all-powerful. He is the court which will determine whether the regulations have been broken. This is what happens, Mr. Speaker, after people have been encouraged to put their money into projects to serve the needs of tourists. Anyway, who would know whether lessees are in breach of some of these regulations? It is a most complicated document. Browning said of one poem he had written: When I wrote it only God and I knew what it meant; now, only God knows. The same applies to this document. On one point, however, section 23 is very clear. It states that on the termination of the lease all the improvements, all the fixtures, all the fittings, go back to the Queen without compensation. I listened to the minister's fine words. But it is like talking about the just society; words are one thing, but you have to look for deeds. In saying this, I am not criticizing the minister himself because the subject I have been discussing does not directly concern his department. Nevertheless, I hope he will look into this question. I doubt very much whether this measure will help anyone in connection with leases. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said while speaking in Saskatchewan during the election campaign that if the farmers were not efficient the state would take the farms over and lease them out. Well, if this is the kind of lease a tenant will get, it will not be of much help to him.
There are one or two other points I should like to make. One has to do with tender of offer. It has been asked: What is the purpose of this clause which provides that the offer of compensation should "forthwith, upon the acceptance of the offer, be paid"? In what circumstances would an owner decline to accept the offer, since he might do so without prejudice to his claim for additional compensation? Would it not be simpler to provide in plain language that the amount of the offer should be tendered together with a notice drawing the owner's attention to the fact that he can cash the cheque without prejudice to any claim for additional compensation,
Expropriation
saying, in other words, that if he did not like the offer he could take his objection to court. To me, this would be streamlining the law and bringing in some measure of equality for everybody.
Now, I turn to this matter of definitions. One of the hardest things about these expropriation acts is to arrive at clear definitions of what is meant by the value to the owner, market value at the time of expropriation, and so on. There are scores of cases on this point.
a (2:10 p.m.)
Professor Eric C. E. Todd of the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia said about this act that the definition of market values is a clumsy thing. I agree with him, because when you are talking about marketing value at the time of the taking of the property you become involved in the principles of the Fraser and Woods cases for example, one of which went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decisions in those cases went so far as to say that market value is not only the value of the land as a piece of agricultural land but is also its future potential. The courts have been reluctant to apply that principle.
We might refer to the famous Indian case that went to the Privy Council on the principle of future potential. This is like the Lake Louise case in which I was involved. The townsite had already been surveyed when the government built the road. They needed only 22 acres but took the whole 40 to 50 acres. The Crown said it was needed for park purposes. The government then built the town-site. I suggested to the court, although they did not follow me, that the future potential was there and the government should have paid for the land on its townsite value.
If a piece of land had been taken in the city of Calgary, Montreal or Toronto, it would have been fine, because the courts and even the department would have applied this principle. They would not apply it in the case to which I have referred. I think the definition in the Ontario act to which the minister has referred is very much better than that in the federal act. Professor Todd said it is a very clumsy definition of market value and introduces the novel element of "fully paid for in cash". He said that if this element were retained it would either be ignored in practice or would cause considerable difficulty when using comparable sales in order to ascertain market value.

November 7, 1969
Expropriation
When you come to put a value on land you try to obtain details of sales of similar quality and potential which occurred about the same time as the taking of the property. From those and the appraiser's report the judge comes up with an answer. These sales are not for cash, so they have not been looked at in this way. Under today's conditions you cannot get cash because of the tight money policy. Very few sales of real estate on the open market are fully paid for in cash. Ontario has adopted the standard definition used in England and the United States. We should take a serious look at this definition.
I have only one or two more points to make. I should like the act to have done something for the first Canadians. I am not talking about the English or the French; I am talking about the Canadian Indian. If ever a dirty deal was perpetrated on any group of Canadians, it was perpetrated on the Indians. The white people eroded the conditions of the Indians and drove them onto little reservations. They have ever since been taking a little more from them in respect of their property rights. This new policy will not help our Indians. Their rights have been ignored, their treaties have been ignored and every promise made to them has been broken. How could they trust us? For years we have been asking the government to set up an Indian Claims Commission. I know of one case that has been before the Exchequer Court for at least ten years without anything being resolved. It involves the Blackfoot reservation near Gleichen. I should have thought that when the minister was bringing in a bill in respect of compensation, Indian claims would also have been covered.
This brings me to my conclusion. Let me again emphasize that I hope the minister will see fit to amend this act when the bill goes before the committee and amendments are proposed. I hope we will not be faced with little changes handed in by members of that committee who belong to the party to which the minister belongs. Let us make a real change and divide the jurisdiction of the act. Let me give one example. A man named Gourlay is a litigant before the Exchequer Court in respect of land that was expropriated. He finally got the case before the Exchequer Court, but because of the rule which provides that you have to file an appraiser's report within a certain number of days, the case was adjourned. After all the parties came here and were ready to proceed, one of the Crown Counsel stood up and objected on the basis that this rule had not been complied 
with. As a result the case stands adjourned. I know what would have happened in the courts of Alberta. The trial judge would have asked whether the Crown's case had been prejudiced. How long does it take to read an appraiser's report and analyse it? The case would have been adjourned till the next day and the court would then have proceeded.
So far as I am concerned you could write a wonderful book on the Expropriation Act. You can say as often as you like that you are trying to make the law equal for everybody, but this will not solve the situation if you leave full jurisdiction with one court. It will do nothing for the litigant. This bill is straight window-dressing. I might be a little extreme in this remark, but I feel we would be wasting our time to even study the bill. So long as the situation is left in this way, we are not helping the individual. It has been said that we want to give every man in Canada an equal opportunity before the courts. The individual is not getting an equal opportunity because individuals are not equally wealthy. Under the Expropriation Act individuals are fighting the state which has the taxpayers' money behind it, including some of the money the litigant has thrown in. A litigant must pay for the appraiser's services, which sometimes amount to thousands of dollars. He has to pay for his lawyer, the use of documents, and witnesses.
An offer made by an expropriating body amounts in many cases to nothing more than duress. A person either accepts the offer or he loses everything. I appeal to the minister to take a good look at this matter. If he intends to streamline the law he should do just that. There has been talk of changing the criminal law. It is still such that any child of seven years of age who knows the nature and the quality of his act can be tried for an offence under the Code. The government has talked about reform, but it has not even scratched the surface of this problem. I should like to see something really constructive done about this matter. I have had enough experience in the courts, including the Exchequer Court, to know that the average man does not get a fair shake.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Expropriation Act is an act of immense importance to a very great many individuals. I know of very few fields in respect of which there is more sensitivity and more sense of injustice than in cases where the state has stepped in and taken over property which has been built up by the work and effort of perhaps generations, certainly of
November 7, 1969

individuals. I suppose I must in all fairness congratulate the minister for producing what is clearly an advance in the law on this subject. I cannot help saying that it is extraordinary to me-it is not the minister's fault and I should not blame him for it in any way- that a sensitive subject like this, which affects the whole of our economy, has up to the present time come under a law passed in 1886, more than 80 years ago.
The fact that we have had to wait 80 years to update our law is certainly a reflection on somebody. It is not a reflection on the minister, who has at long last produced this bill which contains many improvements; it is a reflection on our system of government. The minister has indicated his acceptance of my proposition. I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has indicated the same thing. This is an intensely complex subject. It seems easy enough in a dynamic economy, such as we have, to establish the value that ought in all fairness to be assessed in respect of an individual's property. We must remember that the state should not be required to pay a disproportionate or excessive price. This is an extremely complex matter which involves the advice of experts and substantial sums of money. In view of the complexity of the subject and the voluminous nature of the bill itself, which breaks new ground, I hope the minister will be thoroughly receptive at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which this bill is to be referred, to amendments proposed by hon. members from all sections of the House.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
As I say, I think this bill is a great advance, but I believe it needs the most careful examination not only by the minister's department but by representatives of all parties in this House. In committee there is sometimes a tendency to say that we already have a lot of good advice and that we do not need much more; that by and large we will let things go as they are with only minor changes. In this case, if fundamental changes are suggested I hope they will be given the most open-minded consideration.
In my experience the property owner who is well financed originally, who owns very substantial property, has very few problems with respect to expropriation. He is able to hire an expert evaluator and experienced counsel, and he pays very substantial sums of money for their services. On the other hand, the small property owner, the farmer, the property owner who perhaps owns a small house which he has bought out of his savings,
Expropriation
is not only inexperienced in the law, not only unacquainted with where to get qualified advice, but is intimidated by the whole proceedings.
One of the weaknesses of our system has been the complete inequality of bargaining power as between the citizen whose property is expropriated, on the one hand, and the expropriating authority on the other hand. The authority usually has a department responsible for this work. It has a lot of expertise. Usually it has a legal branch devoted to the subject. But the ordinary citizen is baffled, worried and frightened because he does not want to incur tremendous expenses. When the minister was speaking I asked him what would happen under this legislation if the offer made by the expropriating authority were not accepted. The minister replied that it could be accepted without prejudice. That is a matter which needs to be looked into very carefully. In clause 15 of the bill it is explicitly stated:
Where an offer of compensation has been made to any person under section 14, the full amount thereof shall, forthwith upon the acceptance of the offer, be paid to that person.
I do not intend to discuss the details of that provision, but it goes to the principle of the bill. The way I would interpret a provision like this is that when you accept an offer you are bound by it. In this case you get paid. If you do not accept the offer, how can you still accept the money? How can you accept and not accept it? I am aware that there is a provision in clause 29 which indicates in some rather backhanded manner that perhaps you can accept the offer, change your mind within a year and ask for more. That is a novel legal concept. It is not made clear in the statute.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make to the minister is that somehow or other we have to make it clear beyond perad-venture that the person whose property is expropriated, before being dispossessed and having his claim determined, should at least have the Crown's estimate of compensation- or a substantial portion of it say, 90 per cent- paid to him so that financially he may be in a position of equality and can secure the expert services necessary to take the case further.


John Napier Turner: That is the case.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The minister says that is the case. I am delighted to hear it, if that is his interpretation. But I give him notice now that in the committee we will have to clarify the question beyond what we see in this bill. If

November 7, 1969
Expropriation
that is the case, fine; let us say it in words that no court, no judge and no citizen can misunderstand. I do not think those words are there now. I am afraid I would be getting into an argument on detail, on the legality of the matter, if I pursued this point further. However, I am pleased with what the minister has said and I assure him that when we get into committee we will deal with the question.
The root of the whole problem at present is the uneveness of the negotiating balance between the expropriating authority and the person whose property is being expropriated. This happens when a government department, the Crown or some other public authority is on one side and a small, private citizen unused to the law and without the necessary funds is on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, this is a little out of order in my notes, but I concur entirely with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when he says there is no use providing justice unless you make it available in all areas. Without being rude to the Exchequer Court, sitting here in Ottawa with high legal fees and antiquated rules it is not available to the ordinary citizen except on terms almost impossible for him to meet. The hon. member is right in suggesting that justice should be made available locally. It should not be something to be purchased at great expense in a capital city perhaps 2,000 miles from where you live. I join the hon. member for Calgary North in urging the minister to consider the question of whether the Exchequer Court is the only court that ought to be able to determine these matters.
There are in the bill some things which I commend and for which I congratulate the minister. He has introduced something of an innovation in providing for a right to a hearing and a right to make objection to the expropriation itself. This is a valuable, new principle in the act. It seems to me very clear that when property owners have their property taken away by the force of the state, they should have the right to attend an open hearing and say, "There is vacant land next to mine that you could use just as well. You do not need mine for your particular purpose. The purpose is unsuitable for the locality."
There is in the bill another provision which I am happy to see. It concerns a principle for which I and other hon. members have fought many battles in this House in the past. The bill provides the right of a small homeowner to get, in effect, a home for a home. This principle of relocation has long been neglected. I believe it is imperative that in order for
[Mr. Brewin.l
the person dispossessed to be put in an economic position where he does not suffer from the expropriation, he should be given the means to acquire other property, another place where he can live, as long as it is comparable to wihat he had, and he should be paid whatever is necessary for this to be done. I commend this feature of the legislation.
The provision with respect to interest is also commendable and reasonable. It made no sense at all that the government should take your property, have long hearings over it and then say at the end of it all, "We will pay you 5 per cent on the money we withheld from you even though we acquired title to your property a long time ago." I am not equally happy, frankly, about the provisions of the bill that attempt to define the compensation to which people are entitled. There are long, complex provisions in regard to that matter. My view is that the basic principle has been recognized by courts in civilized countries for generations, and that principle is fair value to the owner. That principle, as Mr. Justice Rand said in one case, is that the owner is entitled to be made economically whole.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
You can talk about the market and relocation value and try to analyse it to your heart's content. The basic proposition is that the man whose property is taken should neither benefit nor be damaged because it happens to be his property that is taken. I suggest that in those sections which deal with the definition of compensation there should be an overriding provision in this respect. Even if we are trying to spell out the principles that make up the concept of market value, value to the owner and what should happen to the tenant, the basic purpose is to make the person expropriated economically whole and to give the proper value to the owner. In so doing you fall back on the basic principle that has been recognized by civilized jurisdictions and courts for many centuries, and that has a useful effect.
There is a danger in being too specific about these things. If you attempt too much definition you limit cases by definition. The circumstances that exist in respect of matters of expropriation are as infinite as is the ingenuity of mankind in acquiring and improving different types of property. So if you put provisions into a straitjacket of long and complicated words, as is done here, and you do not adequately reproduce the basic principle, you may be giving a formula for injustice in certain cases.
November 7, 1969

I want to say something general about this legislation. I do not know whether anything can be done about it because it is really too long and too complex. I do not know why the draftsmen had to produce pages and pages in order to set out the principles. I would very much hope that someone could say to these draftsmen, "Shorten this. Cut out the verbiage that is unnecessary." Perhaps it is an impossible thing to do in this case.


John Napier Turner: The hon.
member is a classic common lawyer.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I may be a common lawyer but I am also a common man and I do not like long, complicated words that no normal person would ever want to read or could understand if they did read them.


Mr.   Olio@: You would not like to be paid by the word.


Francis Andrew Brewin: There is one example of what I am saying. There are provisions for what I call forced negotiations. When your property has been expropriated after receipt of notice, the confirmation and offers having been made, you may have to engage in a process of mediation or settlement. The mediator is appointed by the government. I suspect that this process is a waste of time. I do not mind negotiating directly with the government, and I do not want to instal a whole host of fifth wheels on the coaches whereby you would waste time going through other processes. If I cannot agree with the government, I want to go to the courts as quickly as possible without going through unnecessary proceedings which are more expensive and less satisfactory. Delay and uncertainty in this field causes more frustration than actual injustice.
I am afraid I will not use the 40 minutes that are assigned to me, but I do not suppose anyone in the House will complain very bitterly about that. I may be setting a good example to others who may follow in the debate. May I say in summary that this is a good act. It is at least 50 years overdue. It has some excellent features which we welcome. It has in it some provisions which we question and which we desire to have clarified. There are some things in it which we oppose and want taken out. I assure the minister that in the committee he will have our full co-operation in trying to make the act as modern, just and up-to-date as possible. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a subject which we
Expropriation
may regard as academic and suitable for discussion by lawyers, but when the shoe pinches it pinches the average citizen and we are concerned with justice to individuals in this country.
Therefore, I commend the bill and say to the minister that we hope to meet him again in the committee. At that time we shall press amendments which we think will constitute real improvements to the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for the instructive and positive way in which they dealt with the bill. I wonder whether with the consent of the House I could call it three o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock I do now leave the chair until 5.45 p.m.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 2.40 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended until 5.45 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.45 p.m.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I now table the white paper on proposals for tax reform, according to the provisions of Standing Order 41 (2).



MOTION TO ADJOURN

Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin):
That the House be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 5.45 p.m.

Monday, November 10, 1969