1970-02-09

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
21701-1|
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 9, 1970

Mr. Speaker:: It gives me pleasure to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of distinguished fellow parliamentarians, members of the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the latest developments in connection with the grounding of the tanker Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia.
On Friday evening last I directed that the ship be removed or destroyed in accordance with the authority granted to me by section 495C of the Canada Shipping Act passed last year. The ship has broken her back on the rock on which she is impaled and it is thought possible to detach the stem section containing the engine and boiler rooms and an estimated one-third of the oil cargo so as to tow this portion out beyond the continental shelf to be sunk in deep water. On receipt of my direction, the two tugs present at the scene succeeded in separating the stern section from the rest of the ship which is awash on the rock. The stern section now rests some 50 feet away from the forward portion, and at this time workmen are ensuring that all openings in the forward part of the stern section are sealed and that portion reinforced so that it will not leak when moved off the ledge of rock on which it is now resting. It is hoped to move this portion at high water late tomorrow morning.
At the same time, materials and equipment have been flown to the scene to permit controlled burning or other disposal of the oil in the forward section. Fireproof booms have been built to surround this portion and it is hoped to let the oil out of the submerged hulk in controlled volumes for destruction within the boom.
A newly-developed technique for assisting burning, involving the use of pellets which act as wicks coupled with magnesium flares to ignite the oil, is being tried this morning on an oil slick in Chedabucto Bay. If this proves successful, it will be applied around the hulk after the stern section has been towed away.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
While the cargo involved is only some 10 per cent of the amount spilled by the Torrey Canyon, the fuel is heavy residual furnace oil in which the volatile fractions have been refined out. It may be very difficult to burn and other methods may be required. An improved chemical for breaking down the fuel so that natural action can take place has been developed recently and this is understood to be relatively non-toxic to marine life. It is the intention to apply this material to the extent that the burning technique is found to be an incomplete solution.
I should emphasize that this whole matter of containing and destroying fuel oil in a siutation like this is only imperfectly understood. Much work has been done on it by various interests, but there are risks attached and some uncertainty of results applying to all the alternatives open to us. At worst, it is likely that release under controlled conditions and reasonable weather is a better alternative than a situation in which oil would seep from the wreck over a long period.
In all this, all resources of men, equipment and materials that are thought to be useful have been marshalled at the site. The department has had the full co-operation of other departments of government including Fisheries, National Defence and Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as representatives of Imperial Oil Limited and their salvors, and environmental control experts. All have personnel at the site, and Imperial Oil has retained the services of Professor Warner of

February 9, 1970
Pollution Control
Memorial University, a marine biologist, to advise generally and to assist in particular with the clean-up measures that will be required. The Canadian Coastguard has ships at the scene as well as helicopters together with those of the armed forces. Chartered aircraft have flown equipment and materials from various parts of the continent. No effort is being spared to contain the spill and to destroy the ship and its cargo with the least possible harm to the environment.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question from the report the minister has given that the situation is very serious as far as its effect on fishlife is concerned, and potentially very serious as far as the environment is concerned. I do not think there can be any question either that there has been a good deal of complacency, from which I hope this disaster will awaken all of us and incite us to make the arrangements necessary to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future to the extent that that is possible and, to the extent it is not possible, will incite us to make the necessary arrangements to be in a position to act effectively. We have not really taken any measures to prevent this sort of thing happening in our own territorial waters, and I would judge that we are not effectively organized to fight it when it does occur.
Again, I am a little confused by the minister's statement in connection with the forward section of the vessel being sealed off so it will not leak when moved off the ledge of rock on which it is now resting. I am confused why it is not possible also to tow this part, the forward section, out to sea if it can be removed from the rock.
Furthermore, I am concerned about why the decision was not taken earlier, first, as to the destruction of the vessel and, second, as to controlled burning. Oil has been escaping over a wide area of water for some time. If it is possible to apply controlled burning either tomorrow or the next day, then many people are going to wonder why it was not possible to apply controlled burning once the oil started to leak in any serious quantity.
It is clear that there is uncertainty as to methods. Here again I believe we have been complacent. There is obviously a need for a good deal of research in connection with this kind of disaster. In particular I believe we need controls for the future within our own territorial waters.
The minister gave the impression the other day that we were limited and restricted in
[Mr. Jamieson.)
this regard because of the lack of international regulations. With all respect, it would seem to me that we are free to apply controls within our own territorial waters. These we should certainly have without delay. The damage is serious and on the basis of what the minister has outlined and admitted the results are very uncertain. As a consequence of the delay this area may suffer a most serious disaster.
So the lesson is that we must be better prepared for this sort of thing when it happens than the government was on this occasion. We must implement regulations which will minimize the possibility of this kind of thing happening. We want some continuing assurance from the minister that every effort will be made-not simply the minister saying every effort is being made-even at this late date to minimize the danger. I think the minister, with respect, ought to remove what seems to me to be some confusion in his statement.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to have the statement from the Minister of Transport regarding the wrecking of the tanker Arrow off the coast of Cape Breton Island. I recognize that there are a great many technical problems involved in dealing with this matter, but I must say it seems to me it has taken an unconscionable length of time to deal with it and to see that the ship or at least part of the ship was towed out to sea and destroyed.
I believe that what has happened in this particularly unfortunate incident calls for a very thorough study and some action by the government to deal with what will undoubtedly be a recurring problem in this country. More and more oil tankers of larger and larger size are going to be used in the transport of oil. The Canadian people are properly exercised about the problem of pollution. It is bad enough that we have to deal with industries which discharge effluent into coastal waters, but if our shores are to be polluted by tankers which either discharge their cargo or are wrecked, then we are going to face a very serious problem, indeed, in terms of pollution of our coastline.
This is why there is so much concern about the proposed second trip of the Manhattan, because it is one of the largest tankers in the world. After its last trip it was reported that it had two large gaping holes in it. Had it been carrying a cargo of oil this would have created a real problem.
February 9, 1970

I suggest to the government that it seems to me there are three things that ought to be done. First, we need regulations that will apply to all ships using Canadian ports and Canadian territorial waters, particularly in respect of those which are carrying cargoes of oil or any other commodity that is likely to pollute our coastline. These regulations ought to be formulated as quickly as possible and enforced rigidly.
Second, we need to put back into the Canada Shipping Act the provision removed from the original draft that the cost of dealing with a situation like that which has been created by the Arrow should be assessed against the company to which the ship belongs or the company which owns the cargo.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Third, we need some legal provision to establish legal responsibility in order that those who are adversely affected by such pollution may have recourse to proper redress and the right to compensation. An incident of this magnitude brings the situation to the attention of Parliament, but in my own constituency smaller ships frequently discharge part of their surplus oil into the sea and the whole harbour is polluted. Those who are affected, those who own small ships which are contaminated and those who live along the coast whose property is contaminated, have no redress whatsoever. There is little use going to court to bring a case against the foreign owners of a small vessel which spent only a few days in the harbour. Since this is likely to be a recurring and increasingly serious problem in the years ahead, I hope the government will take vigorous steps to ensure that there is no repetition of this unfortunate incident.



PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with a news article, written by Mr. David Crane, which appeared today in the Globe and Mail. According to this report the Prime Minister made a certain statement in the course of answering questions. I notice that at the time he was smelling flowers and had beads about his neck. The degree to which this statement is removed from the truth would indicate either
Expo Expenditures
that what he was breathing was worse than the effects of pot or that the beads he was wearing were not truth beads.
To the question, why did the farmers not get the $200 million-the reference was to the money provided in connection with Expo- the Prime Minister answered:
I don't think these people are poor, Mr. Trudeau said. In his visit to the west he had seen farmers riding $20,000 tractors and they probably owned land costing $100,000 to $200,000.


Mr. Trudeau:: What is the question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to say:
Why not give it to the small grocer in my riding who is being forced out of business by the supermarket?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John George Diefenbaker: Then he went on to explain the $200 million granted in connection with Expo. He was asked why it was that when Montreal needed millions for Expo the money was available, but when the western farmer needs $200 million it is not. "Can you explain, the student asked Mr. Trudeau."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to invite the right hon. gentleman to indicate to the House as quickly as possible what his question of privilege is. I also have to remind him that all hon. members are required to give notice of questions of privilege. He is reading from an article which appeared in a newspaper this morning, which would indicate he had ample time to give the Chair the notice which all hon. members are required to give.


An hon. Member:: Contempt of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I would therefore suggest that if the right hon. gentleman has a question of privilege he should come to it quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this was brought to my attention a few minutes ago and it is a matter to which reference must be made because the honour of the government I had the honour to head is impugned by a statement which is false and frivolous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister replied that the federal government was fulfilling an obligation made in 1962 under a Conservative government. In 1962 a statute was passed by this Parliament under the terms of which the federal government would provide $20 million, the province of Quebec $10 million, and the city of Montreal $5 mil-

February 9, 1970
Expo Expenditures
lion. The expenditures which were made, and to which the Prime Minister alluded, were made as a result of an orgy of extravagance by the Pearson government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not like to prevent the Prime Minister replying to the statement made by the right hon. gentleman, even though I doubt very much that there is a question of privilege. In any event there has been no notice as required. Even if no notice were required because of the circumstances alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, to wit, the fact that this matter was not brought to his attention until shortly before he entered the chamber, in any event there is no motion proposed by the right hon. gentleman and the matter should not be pursued. I think it might be unfair, however, not to allow the Prime Minister, if he wishes, to say a word by way of explanation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been debated a number of times. The right hon. gentleman might be well advised to wear some memory beads because it has been stated-


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister talk about faulty memory!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and repeated many times that the $20 million to which the hon. member refers was an initial payment and the agreement was that subsequent amounts, as and when the need developed, would also be covered by the federal government. It has been explained so many times that I cannot understand why the hon. member is not telling the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. A week ago today he said "yes" and the next day he said he fooled the House and meant to say "no". So I will not ask for any withdrawal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is always difficult for the Chair to determine when words are used which ought not to be used. The Prime Minister cannot suggest that another member is not telling the truth, but I take the liberty to interpret his words in a way which would make them acceptable from a procedural standpoint. I am sure the Prime Minister would want the Chair to interpret the words in this way.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Communications I am pleased to announce that negotiations between the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and responsible authorities in Great Britain, Ireland, several other European countries and the Trans-Canada Telephone System have resulted in substantial reductions in transatlantic communications rates. The Telephone, Telex and TWX services represent reductions ranging from 17 to 33 per cent.
As the minister responsible for this Crown Corporation I congratulate the COTC executive for their success in reducing rates at a period when the Canadian economy faces great inflationary pressures. The new rates come into effect in the case of Great Britain on March 1, 1970, and for Ireland and other European countries the new rates will be effective April 1, 1970.
May I, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of hon. members have the new COTC rates taken as read and inserted in Hansard at this point?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The statement on new rates referred to above follows:]
From Canada to Great Britain and Ireland rates for person-to-person calls on week days remain at $9 for the initial three minutes but each additional minute will be reduced from $3 to $2. For night and Sunday person-to-person calls the rates will remain at $6.75 for the first three minutes but each additional minute will cost $1.50 instead of $2.25. For station-to-station calls on week days the new rate will be $6 for the three initial minutes and $2 for each additional minute instead of $7.50 and $2.50. Station-to-station calls at night and on Sundays will cost $4.50 for the first three minutes and $1.50 for each additional minute; the old rates were $5.70 and $1.90.
Rates for person-to-person calls on week days between Canada and Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Vatican City will remain at $12 for the first three minutes. But each additional
February 9, 1970

minute will cost only $2.45 instead of $3. Where applicable, night and Sunday rates for person-to-person calls will remain at $9 for the first three minutes, but each additional minute will cost $1.85 instead of $2.25. Rates for station-to-station calls on week days will be reduced from $9 to $7.35 for the initial three minutes; each additional minute will cost $2.45 instead of $3. Where applicable, night and Sunday rates for station-to-station calls will be $5.55 for the first three minutes and each additional minute will cost $1.85. Old rates were $6.75 and $2.25. Night and Sunday rates are not available with Austria, France, Liechtenstein, Greece and Switzerland.
Telex and TWX rates to Britain will be reduced to $2.25 per minute from $3-minimum one minute-and to most other European countries from $3 to $2.50 per minute. Some European countries will have a three-minute minimum charge, not having yet introduced the one-minute minimum rate.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Eric William Kierans: The COTC hopes to be able to
negotiate similar reductions in telephone, Telex and TWX rates with other countries.
In conclusion, I would like to add that this excellent performance by COTC follows a situation in which this Crown Corporation in 1968-69 earned a net profit of $5.8 million and returned $6.2 million in taxes. This year the Crown Corporation waived a $5 million government loan allocated to it, and I am informed that COTC will not be requesting further funds from the government during the coming year.
I hope that this performance by COTC in reducing rates by amounts of up to 33 per cent will serve as an example to private enterprise and an example that private enterprise will strive to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Robert L Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I might just say a word. Of course I am pleased to hear the minister's announcement, but I do not really think that the Canadian organization had very much alternative because there had already been an announcement in the United States that rates between the United States and Europe were going to be cut substantially. But at least it is pleasing to know that Canadian overseas rates are also going to come down.
Questions


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this statement. We were quite pleased to give consent to the inclusion in Hansard of the lower rates that are to come into effect for overseas service. We would also be quite happy to give unanimous consent for inclusion in Hansard of a list of lower rates in Canada. If this is possible on an overseas basis, why not in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-182, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


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

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-183, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act.


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: for leave to introduce Bill C-184, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.


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

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

Mr. Benjamin: For the fiscal years 1958-59, 1963-64, and 1968-69, what have been the staff turnover rates for the following government departments and agencies (a)


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary ^ to President of the Privy Council):: (k)
1958-59	1963-64	1968-69 (1)(Calendar	16.1	11.2	10.0Year)	18.0	17.0	15.0
Being a relatively new department, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is unable to answer this question as statistics were not maintained in a manner which would readily provide this information.
However, since April 1, 1969 they are compiling this type of information and would be able to answer such a request
from that date. 19.4	14.0	18.812.5	13.9	8.26.0	6.2	7.89.6	8.5	9.325.0	15.0	25.0Not available.	per cent	per cent	per cent(a)	14.7	12.3	13.8(b)	15.5	10.0	11.5(c)	It has not been	the practice	nor is it
considered appropriate to answer questions regarding the internal administration of the Bank of Canada.
(m)	10.2	8.7	(11.5)*
20.9
Note: *This figure includes 633 classroom teachers of whom there were a total of 2101 in 1968-1969. The bracketed percent indicates turnover rate less classroom teachers.
1963-64
(n) Department did not exist. Department established July
25,	1963. Information not
available.
(o)	No figures available.	15.5%(p)	10.6%	10.8%(q)	No figures are available as the Department of Manpower and Immigration was not established until 1966.(r)	3.8%	4.6%(s)	21.5%	20.7%(t)	8.9%	8.4%(u)	13.5%	15.0%(v)	6.0%	5.5%(w)	Records for the fiscal years 1958-59 and 1963-64 have been destroyed and it is not possible to provide the necessary statistics for those two fiscal years.(x)	Complete records not available for the 1958-59 and 1963-64 fiscal years.(y)	5.2%	7.1%(z)	No figures are available as the Department of the Solicitor General was not established until 1966.(aa)	Not available.	5.6%(bb)	11.5%	10.2%(cc) No figures available as the Treasury Board Secretariat, formerly part of the Department of Finance, did not become a separate department until October 3, 1966. (dd)	18.0%	14.0%

15.5%
19.4%
15.1%
7.6%
4.5%
24.5%
7.2%
17.2%
5.6%
8.0%
12.9%
6.4%
1.5%
14.5%
11.1%
34.0%
17.0%
February 9, 1970


EXPENDITURES ON AIRCRAFT PURCHASES AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	In each year since 1960, what has been the total dollar content of government expenditures, including purchases, overhaul and repair and modification of fixed and rotary wing aircraft in (a) the Atlantic Provinces (b) Quebec (c) Ontario (d) the Prairies and (e) British Columbia?
2.	In each of the last five years, how many separate firms in each of the above regions were awarded aerospace contracts in excess of $50,000,000. by the government?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned:
1.	The records of the Department are not maintained in a manner which would enable us to readily provide this information. In order to assemble the information, it would be necessary to examine about 15,000 contract files.
2.	During the past five years there were two contracts for $50,000,000 and over, which were awarded to Canadair Ltd. Montreal for production of the NF-5 and CF-5 aircraft. The NF-5 aircraft were purchased by Canada for re-sale to the Netherlands government.


ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SMALLER PORTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is the Minister of Transport conducting a study to determine whether administrative responsibility of smaller ports could be shifted to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry?
2.	Is such a study being carried out by both Departments?
3.	When is it anticipated the study will be completed and a decision announced?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as follows:	1. The administration of smaller
ports is under review with a number of departments and agencies.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.


DISTRIBUTION OF SPEECH BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What was the purpose of the distribution in the form of a departmental news release on December 2, 1969, of the text of a speech by the Minister of Finance, in the House of Commons, Friday, November 28, 1969?
21701-2J
Questions
2.	How many copies of this speech were distributed and what was the total estimated cost in preparing and distributing the speech?
3.	Would the Government of Canada be prepared to distribute the text of the speeches made on November 28, 1969 in the House of Commons by the lead-off speakers of the Conservative, New Democratic and Ralliement Creditiste Parties?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The text of the November 28 speech by the Minister of Finance was distributed to government offices, embassies and libraries, to persons in business and finance and to other groups and individuals who have asked to receive speeches by the Minister and announcements of the Department of Finance. This follows the normal practice of successive Ministers of Finance. The speech was also sent to news media and to Members of the House of Commons and Senate.
2.	Estimated costs of preparation and distribution for 2,200 English and 300 French copies was $377.31, including mailing costs.
3.	The government assumes that persons wishing to obtain speeches by Members and Leaders of Opposition parties have made arrangements to do so. Facilities are available to Opposition parties to respond to these requests.


AUTOMOTIVE ADUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD LOANS
Mr. Scoff: 1.	How many industries have received loans from the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Board since its inception?
2.	What are the names of these companies and where are they located?
3.	What was the amount of the loan to each company?
4.	How many companies have failed to repay these loans?
5.	How many companies are in arrears with their payments?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. To November 30, 1969, a total of 58 firms.
2.	and 3. It is not the policy of the Adjustment Assistance Board to reveal the names of the borrowers or the amounts of individual loans.
4.	None.
5.	As of November 30, 1969, one.


MEDICAL, DENTAL AND ENGINEERING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The: Sydneys):
Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration now get information from the provincial

February 3, 1970
Questions
medical, dentistry and engineering associations about employment opportunities or does it instead depend on information of Canada manpower service?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department's Canada Manpower Centres frequently obtain information describing employment opportunities, their location and salary from employers and provincial associations by telephone and visits. This information is obtained to counsel clients seeking employment, to place clients (including immigrants) in employment, and to obtain information necessary in the filling of employment vacancies listed by employers. Canada Manpower Centres and the Department's regional offices also frequently obtain information from provincial associations as part of their job in understanding these labour markets. The head office in Ottawa periodically obtains information from national associations on opportunities for new university graduates.


DELIVERY OF MAIL, CHARLOTTETOWN
Mr. MacLean: Has the Post Office Department received any complaints of slow delivery of mail in the Charlottetown area and, if so, what action has been taken to investigate and correct the cause of such slow delivery?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, a total of 16 complaints were received. Each was investigated and where the cause of delay could be determined, steps were taken to prevent recurrence.


MAIL DELIVERY TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In what cities and towns of Canada are residents of apartment buildings unable to receive postal delivery by mailmen because of the current "austerity" program?
2.	What is the estimate of the number of people in the situation referred to in Part 1?
3.	What provisions are made for such people to obtain their mail?
4.	How many protests have been received concerning this situation?
5.	What is the estimated having from the nonprovision of delivery service to apartment blocks?


Eric William Kierans: 1. None. Extensions of Letter Carrier Service to available calls, including apartment buildings, are now provided in the normal manner. Temporary restrictions on extensions under the economy program were eliminated in October 1969.
2.	None.
3.	Not Applicable.
4.	Not Applicable.
5.	Not Applicable.


PERSONS RECEIVING MAIL ACCORDING TO FREQUENCY OF DELIVERY
Mr. Macquarrie: For each of the provinces and territories of Canada, what is the estimated number of Canadians now receiving mail delivery (a) six days a week (b) five days a week (c) three or fewer days per week?


Eric William Kierans: The numbers of calls served by letter carriers as of November 30, 1969, in the Provinces and Territories are as follows:
Calls receiving	Calls served by letter carrier	Total callsdirect delivery	through group	served byby letter carrier	boxes	letter carrierNewfoundland	
24,883	269	25,152Nova Scotia	
90,224	1,147	91,371New Brunswick	
62,501	618	63,119Prince Edward Island	
9,367	61	9,428Quebec	
1,256,197	4,721	1,260,918Ontario	
1,646,030	5,237	1,651,267Manitoba	
i83,048	958	184,006Saskatchewan	
118,765	471	119,236Alberta	
274,807	1,158	275,965British Columbia	
484,555	3,550	488,105Yukon Territory	
nil	nil	nilNorthwest Territories	
nil	nil	nil4,150,377	18,190	4,168,567

February 9, 1970

The above are the only available statistics and they relate to calls served. A call may be a residence, office, store, factory or institution. Letter Carrier delivery service is provided on a five day basis (Monday to Friday inclusive).
Departmental records are not maintained according to frequency of service, of house-
Questions
holders served by Rural Routes and Suburban Services; however, the statement below indicates the number of Rural Routes and Suburban Services in each Postal District according to frequency, and also the total number of householders served by all such services in each Postal District as of March 31, 1969:
Postal district	Rural routes-	-Frequency	Suburban services	6 p.w.	5 p.w.	4 p.w.	3 p.w. 2 p.w. 1	p.w.	Total	6 p.w. 5 p.w.	Total householdersSt. John's	.... 13	4	i	10	i	1	30	3	4,174Halifax	... 418	-	2	14	2	-	436	5	-	57,235p.e.i	... 144	-	-	-	-	-	144	-	-	13,009Saint John	.... 349	1	4	23	-	-	377	3	-	51,358Quebec	.... 752	-	4	12	1	1	770	-	-	77,155Montreal	.... 688	-	2	8	-	-	698	-	-	89,017Ottawa	... 662	-	-	23	-	-	685	1	-	74,660Toronto	... 551	-	-	-	1	-	552	4	3	89,712London	... 748	-	-	-	-	-	748	-	-	101,158North Bay	... 170	-	5	36	1	-	212	2	-	24,699Winnipeg	... 47	-	-	92	16	-	155	-	2	15,455Saskatoon	... 3	-	-	20	88	-	111	-	-	4,918Calgary	... 19	-	3	47	38	1	108	4	-	8,860Edmonton	... 35	1	11	72	64	1	184	-	-	15,351Vancouver	... 160	1	2	14	5	4	186	2	4	63,340Postmaster	Montreal	-	1	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	155Ottawa	... 8	-	-	-	-	-	8	-	-	2,564Toronto	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Winnipeg	... 4	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	-	3,617Vancouver	
-	3	-	-	-	-	3	-	-	1,371Total	... 4,771	11	34	371	217	8	5,412	25	12	697,808


POST OFFICE CLOSURES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 816
Mr. Macquarrie:: 1.	Since June 25, 1968, how many post offices have been closed in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many patrons were being served by these offices?
3.	What alternative service was provided to these patrons?
4.	What was the total increase in payment to rural route carriers resultant from such closings?
5.	For each province, what is the estimated saving resultant from the closing of such offices?
6.	What is the estimate of the number of letters of complaint received from groups and individuals concerning postal service since June 25, 1968?


Eric William Kierans: 1. British Columbia, 33; Alberta, 82; Saskatchewan, 91; Manitoba, 51; Ontario, 243; Quebec, 192; New Brunswick, 73; Nova Scotia, 94; Prince Edward Island, 31; Newfoundland, 37; Northwest Territories, 2; Yukon, 2.
2.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way that would make it possible to compile these statistics.
3.	Rural mail delivery or group mail boxes were provided and in some cases service is available through an adjacent post office.
4.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way as to provide that information.
5.	Departmental records are not maintained in such a way as to permit compilation of savings broken down by province. However, since the inception of the Department's program in February 1967, to close small unproductive post offices, an approximate saving of $1,100,000 has been realized throughout the country.
6.	Departmental records are not maintained on the number of letters of complaint received in connection with the closing of post offices.
February 9, 1970
3348	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
HALIFAX-POSTAL DELIVERY TO NEW Location APARTMENT BUILDING


Mr. McCleave: 1.	Are new apartment buildings on Ardwell
Avenue, Spryfield, City of Halifax, receiving postal Dartmouth delivery to inside mail boxes and, if not, is the Post Office using group site boxes located outside?
2.	If the answer to Part I is in the affirmative, how many individual boxes are involved?


Eric William Kierans: 1. There is one new apartment building on Ardwell Avenue. It contains six suites and delivery service is provided by letter carrier to inside mail boxes.
2.	Six individual units in an apartment house mail receiver assembly.


FEDERAL DEPARTMENT LEASED SPACE, HALIFAX AND DARTMOUTH
[Stage Direction]
Building
5643 Spring Garden Road Willow Tree Service Centre Building 55 Hawthorne K-Mart Plaza Royal Bank Building Shannon Plaza
Additional space leased by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
Dartmouth 3 Bruce Street, Woodlawn.
3.	Halifax (a) $1.51 (National Harbours Board Immigration Building-Shed); (b) 4.15; (c) 6.75 (Office space). Dartmouth (a) $2.27 (Storage space); (b) 3.10; (c) 5.00 (Office space).
Additional space leased by Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Dartmouth: $2.25 (No services).
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What total of square footage of leased space do federal departments now hold in Halifax and Dartmouth?
2.	In what buildings is this leased space situated?
3.	What is the (a) lowest (b) average (c) highest cost of rental per square foot of such leased space?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Location	Space
Halifax	276,639 square feet
Dartmouth	27,570 square feet


PUBLIC DEBT, 1967, 1968, 1969
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What was the amount of the public debt at the end of fiscal years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	What was the amount of interest paid for each of these fiscal years?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	1966-67, $19,940,206,029; 1967-68, $20,579,875,034; 1968-69, $22,100,957,706.
2.	1966-67, $901,537,725; 1967-68, $980,527,582; 1968-69, $1,136,103,916.
Additional space leased by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
Dartmouth	2,427 square feet
2.
Location	Building
Halifax	Argyle Garage
5525 Artillery Place 1572 Barrington 1737 Barrington C.N.R. Station Centennial Building 5450 Cornwallis 1521 Dresden Row 5614 Fenwick 1575 Granville Halifax Insurance Building Hollis Building Maritime Life Building National Harbours Board Buildings
Royal Bank Building 1 Sackville Place 5516 Spring Garden Road


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in Cumberland-Colchester North since June 25, 1968?
2.	How many additional offices does the Post Office Department intend to close?
3.	What localities were the post offices located that have already been closed and what are the localities in which future closures will take place?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Nine.
2.	Sixteen.
3.	(a) Upper Economy, Tidnish, Old Barns, Thomson Station, Head of Amherst, Malagash Mine, Londonderry Station, Athol, West Brook.
(b) Denmark, Earltown, East Advocate, Fox River, Glenholme, Little Bass River, Nappan, New Salem, Parrsboro Shore, River Philip, Spencer's Island, Wards Brook, Wentworth Centre, West Advocate, Apple River, Schini-mecas Bridge.

February 9, 1970


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK DEBENTURES-PURCHASE BY BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	During 1969, did the Bank of Canada purchase debentures issued by the Industrial Development Bank and, if so, what was the value of the debentures acquired by the Bank of Canada?
2.	What is the average interest rate paid by the Industrial Development Bank on such debentures?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The Bank of Canada purchased all debentures issued by the Industrial Development Bank during 1969. The total issued in this period was $132,300,000, of which $86,700,000 was in replacement of maturing debentures.
2. The average interest rate paid by the Industrial Development Bank on debentures issued during 1969 was 8.20 per cent.


NOVA SCOTIA-MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	Since January, 1968, have any persons received grants or loans under the Manpower Mobility Programme through the offices of the Canada Manpower Centre at (a) Sydney Mines, (b) North Sydney (c) Sydney, Nova Scotia and, if so, how many?
2.	Have any persons been refused by each of these offices and, if so (a) how many (b) for what reasons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. Under the Canada Manpower Mobility Program grants only are authorized. A detailed breakdown of statistics for the period 1 January 1968-31 March 1968 is not available. The data given is for the full fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69 and also the period 1 April-31 December 1969, by type of grants:
Trainee Explor- Relo-Travel atory cation Total
(a) Sydney Mines	11	8	13	32(b) North Sydney	176	41	29	246(c) Sydney	466	103	120	689
2. (a) Yes, Sydney Mines 79, North Sydney 26 and Sydney 14.
(b) Mobility assistance was not authorized because the persons failed to meet one or more of the following qualifying conditions prescribed by the Manpower Mobility Regulations: Not unemployed at the time of application; there was employment available in present locality; there were no employment prospects in new area; the area to which person wished to move was not the nearest
Questions
area in which suitable employment was available; client failed medical examination required by employer or training institution.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PHASING OUT SAVINGS
Mr. McKinley: 1.	What is the total saving in government spending that will result from the recent announcement of the phasing out of militia units and the closing out of armouries across Canada?
2.	In particular, what savings in government expenditure will result from the closing of the armouries in Wingham and the phasing out of the 21st Field Artillery Regiment?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Approximately $15,000,000.
2. In arriving at an approximate cost of maintaining a militia unit certain factors must be considered. The operating and maintenance costs of the armoury, pay of unit members, are basic costs but there are other costs which are not as readily identified on a unit basis such as provision and maintenance of equipment, pay of regular force support staffs, travel, rations, clothing, etc. It is estimated that approximately $40,000 will be saved by phasing out the 21st Field Artillery Regiment and closing the Armoury in Wingham, Ontario.


USE OF PICLORAM TO MARK CANADA-U.S. BOUNDARY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is pieloram being used to mark the land boundary between Canada and the United States?
2.	What formula exists for the quantities being used and what safeguards exist as to such use?
3.	How long has pieloram been in existence, who invented it and what tests were carried out as to its effect on foilage and animal, human or bird life and on soil or water?
4.	For what reasons was the decision made to mark out the boundary?
5.	Was the pieloram decision made at the initiative of the Canadian or American Government?
6.	Who will supply the pieloram?
7.	Who will apply the pieloram?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Pieloram is an ingredient in the herbicide used to mark the boundary.
2 and 7. The commercial mixture, containing 0.54 pounds pieloram per gallon, is applied at rates varying from 1.6 to 3 gallons per acre. The rates of application and methods are laid down by Canada Department of Agriculture. The program is carried out by

February 9, 1970
Questions
experienced personnel under the direct supervision of the staff of the International Boundary Commission.
3.	The product has been commercially available through Dow Chemical since 1963. The tests on the chemical were carried out by the Company and submitted to the Department of Agriculture prior to certification.
4.	A boundary vista is called for under a treaty of 1925 between Canada and the United States, and the International Boundary Commission Act, 1960.
5.	The Commission's program is an international operation developed through consultation and agreement between Canadian and United States members.
6.	The commercial product is supplied by Dow Chemical.


MONTREAL POLICE STRIKE-FACILITIES GUARDED BY ARMED FORCES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	During the recent Montreal police strike, were certain facilities guarded by members of the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, what were the facilities so guarded?
2.	At whose request was this service performed?
3.	What authority decided which types of utilities should be so guarded?
4.	Is the cost to the federal government being charged to any other levels of government?


David Walter Groos: 1. Yes, the transmission tower on Mount Royal; City Hall; Montreal Police Headquarters, and La Surete Provinciale du Quebec (SPQ) Headquarters in Montreal.
2.	The Attorney General of the Province of Quebec.
3.	The Director General of La Surete du Quebec.
4.	Yes, to the Province of Quebec.


FAIREY AVIATION LAY-OFFS
Mr. Forreslall: In detail, what specific steps have been taken by the government to assure the minimum amount of hardship for employees of Fairey Aviation of Canada who are scheduled to be laid off during the next few weeks?


Yves Forest: The
Department of Manpower and Immigration has assigned a task force of four manpower counsellors and a clerk to register and counsel all the employees of Fairey Canada Ltd. at its Dartmouth plant. In addition,

three manpower counsellors have been assigned to the other three operations of the Company in the Maritimes, at Halifax International Airport, Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and Summerside, Prince Edward Island. The full services of the Canada Manpower Centres are being offered to the workers, including:	employment counselling, job referral, mobility assistance and occupational training.
The registration process commenced on January 23, 1970. Fairey Canada is co-operating fully and has permitted these interviews to take place on Company premises. The workers are allowed time off at full pay tc attend.
The Company has agreed to explore the possibility of forming a joint labour-management committee under the auspices of the Department's Manpower Consultative Service. The first phase of such a program would normally be the compiling of a manpower inventory such as is currently in progress. Following this, steps would be taken to arrange for such matters as separation pay and pension allowances. The possibility of arranged employment in other related work would be investigated. If it is necessary for workers to relocate in order to accept employment, mobility assistance would be provided under the Manpower Mobility Program.


PERPETUAL BONDS ISSUED
Mr. Rodrigue: What is the total amount of perpetual bonds issued by the Canadian government as of January 1, 1970?


Edgar John Benson: 


$55,000,000. BANK OF CANADA-COST OF ISSUING NEW SERIES OF NOTES
Mr. Goode: 1.	What is the estimated cost of design and manufacutre of the engraving plates which will be required by the Bank of Canada to produce the new series of bank notes which will be issued beginning in 1970?
2.	What is the cost of issuing a series of notes of the new design as opposed to retaining the current design?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. The cost of the design and manufacture of the engraving plates to produce a new series of bank notes, like the cost of issuing notes, is paid by the Bank of Canada.
February 9, 1970

It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions regarding the in.ernal administration of the Bank of Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	What federal government departments, Crown corporations and agencies have their head offices located in the Ottawa-Hull area?
2.	For each of the above departments, Crown corporations and agencies, what is the number of employees as of the last government fiscal year?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF NON-CANADIANS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What departments employ, in what ranks, in what numbers, and from what foreign states, persons who are not Canadian citizens?
2.	What departments employ, in what ranks, in what numbers, and from what foreign states, persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor Landed Immigrants?
3.	Has any distinction been made between Canadian citizens, Landed Immigrants and Non-landed Immigrants in the termination of the services of people employed by the Public Service Commission and other agencies of the federal government?
Return tabled.



ROYAL COMMISSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 397
Mr. Coales:: 1.	How many commissions established by the government prior to June 25, 1968, have not as yet presented their final report to the government?
2.	What was the responsibility of each of the commissions in question, on what date were they appointed and what are the names of the individuals associated with each commission?
3.	What has been the cost of each commission to date and what is the estimated final cost of each commission?
4.	In each instance, what is the amount that has been received by the individuals associated with each commission in both salary or honoraria and expenses?
Return tabled.



BILINGUAL BONUS, PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Caouelle: In each of the government departments and corporations, in each of the Crown corporations and
Orders for Returns
in the Public Service Commission, how many employees whose mother tongue is (a) French (b) English, receive the 7% bonus for being bilingual?
Return tabled.



NHA LOANS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Alexander: 1.	(a) In the period between January 1, 1969 and the date of assent to Bill C-192, An Act to amend the National Housing Act, what was the total value of loans or contributions made under each of the following sections of the National Housing Act (i) Section 35A-Joint Federal-Provincial Public Housing Projects (ii) Section 35D-Loans for the construction or acquisition of public housing projects (iii) Section 35E-Contributions to public housing agencies providing low rental accommodation (b) how many units are covered by those loans or contributions under each of the sections in part (a)?
2.	(a) During the period between January 1, 1969, and the date of assent to Bill C-192 what loans were made under the then Sections 16 and 16A of the National Housing Act and, for each loan, what was (i) the value of the loan (ii) the location of the housing project (iii) the number of units (broken down by number of bedrooms) (iv) the rent range (b) what general procedures were followed with regard to the loans referred to in part (a) in order to (i) establish the rent range (ii) establish the tenants' income limit (iii) determine the proportion of the term of the loan during which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation maintains control over rents?
3.	(a) In the period between the date of assent to Bill C-192 and September 30, 1969, what was the total value of loans or contributions made under each of the following sections of the National Housing Act (i) Section 35A-Federal-Provincial public housing projects (ii) Section 35D-Loans for the construction or acquisition of public housing projects (iii) Section 35E-Contributions to public housing agencies providing low rental accommodation (b) how many housing units are covered by those loans or contributions under each of the sections in part (a)?
4.	(a) During the period between the date of assent to Bill C-192, and September 30, 1969, what loans have been made under section 16 of the National Housing Act and, for each loan, what was (i) the value of the loan (ii) the location of the housing project (iii) the number of units (broken down by number of bedrooms) (iv) the rent range (b) what general procedures were followed with regard to the loans referred to in part (a) in order to (i) establish the rent range (ii) establish the tenants' income limit (iii) determine the proportion of the term of the loan during which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation maintains control over rents?
Return tabled.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would ask the Department of Transport to answer question No. 303 asked in October.


David Walter Groos: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of certain representations made to him over the weekend, the government plans to order or conduct an inquiry into the economic difficulties in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, no representations were made to me over the weekend, as far as I am aware. Questions were asked along lines that were alluded to earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and I believe they were dealt with sufficiently at that time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to announce any additional measures to meet the deepening economic difficulties, particularly in the prairies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question was asked at least four times in my memory in the past two weeks and was answered by me and by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the question would not have to be asked so often if the government would do something about the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it a correct statement of government policy that the farmers in the west are not poor because they drive tractors and that therefore no additional measures by the government are appropriate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce legislation on the much talked about government program to buy up farms since many farmers are driving tractors worth less than $2,000?



LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT REDUCED WHEAT ACREAGE-FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO FARMERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supple-

February 9, 1970
mentary question of the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to reduce the amount of acreage which farmers on the prairies can sow to wheat in the coming year, and does the government intend to provide some financial incentive for this purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House seems to be very concerned with the legislation to come in due course; such will be announced in due course by the government. There is no attempt by the government to do everything today. We have spread our legislative program over the whole session and we expect co-operation from all parties in the execution of this program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the House is not to know until the legislation is introduced, has the Prime Minister conveyed this information to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who has made statements to the effect that the government intends to curtail the amount of acreage which the farmers will sow to wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking about communications between a minister and the Prime Minister. The question as asked is not in order.

Does the hon. member for Portneuf wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and to the Prime Minister.
Last year he granted some credits to the opposition members so that they could become better informed and, consequently, ask more relevant questions. Last week, we were glad to learn that hon. members on the government side would enjoy the same benefit. Could the Prime Minister tell us what means he intends to take, personally, to improve his own replies?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that in the Prime Minister's answer he dealt with the economic plight of western Canada has he anything to announce-and this affects the economics of western Canada-in reference to the strike that is tying up all the ships in Vancouver?

February 9, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: I would not think this is a supplementary question. This question might be asked a little later during the proceedings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If that does not affect the economics of the country, nothing does.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he have his research staff read the report of the Barber Commission so that his knowledge of the prices of tractors might be more accurate?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Solicitor General; I have given him notice of its general nature. In view of the allegations made on a television program last night that officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in British Columbia acted illegally in deporting three young Americans without any deportation order or other authority, has the minister instituted a further and fuller inquiry into this shocking incident and, if so, has he received a fuller report than the one he was good enough to communicate to me by letter on February 3?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not see the television show on this subject that was put on last night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They said you didn't tell the truth.


George James McIlraith: I am advised it was quite inaccurate in parts of it. As to the subject matter the hon. member is concerned with, I did institute an investigation of the matter when I had some correspondence from him, for which I thank him for giving me notice, and I gave him a reply on Friday. The TV show was on Sunday night and I instituted a further investigation this morning as to the allegations, some of which were also contained in some material which the hon. member supplied to me and which again is not accurate in part. That second inquiry is not yet completed. I do not have the final report on the part arising out of some things said on the television program last night.


Mr. Hees:: Once again but more slowly, George.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Baldwin:: Start from square one.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the minister for not having seen the program last night. I only envy him for the reason he was unable to see it. I want to ask him this very serious question: in view of the conflicting allegations, and in view of the fact that the minister says reports were inaccurate merely on information he has received from his officers, who are not disinterested in this situation-


George James McIlraith: And my personal staff.


David Lewis: -and in view of the fact that it is important that officers of the RCMP act legally and not as agents of foreign authorities, will the minister undertake to appoint a judge or other disinterested person to make a full and independent inquiry into the facts so that he may be in a position to report fully to the House and to take whatever action those facts require?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, but what I will undertake to do is to complete the investigation so that I can report fully to the hon. member and to the House. I am informed that these three youths were not deported and that there was no action that could be called into question. There is a sharp difference between the allegations and the part of the investigation I have completed now, and until it is fully completed I do not know that there is much use in pursuing the matter. Rather than appoint someone to conduct an inquiry now I want to complete the investigation, and I will give the hon. member and the House a report on it.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that he can rely on the information he will receive from officers


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think the question the hon. member is asking now is in order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer, with your permission I should like to raise the question at the time of adjournment.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister makes his full report would he make sure he does not do it on a short day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As it is recognized in high places that the producers of industrial milk are in no way responsible for inflation, could the minister tell us if he will reconsider his decision and recommend that the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission, which was to be cut by $10 million, as announced by him, be left unchanged?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might put a question related to one asked earlier. In view of economic conditions on the prairies and the long drawn-out longshoremen's strike in British Columbia and the trouble it has caused, has the Prime Minister anything to report to the House on whether the strike is over and what position the government is taking?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do have a report which the Minister of Labour will be able to complete when he is back in the House; he is now in Vancouver. I am told that agreement was reached between the negotiating teams and that the union membership will vote again-I think for the fourth time, on this agreement. There is no change-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was interrupted by somebody. Could the Prime Minister advise us if the men are going to remain off work while that second or third vote is being taken?


Some hon. Members:: Fourth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Fourth.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of conflicting reports, will the minister advise the [Mr. Hees.l
House whether or not grain is continuing to move through the west coast terminals and, if not, will he use his great influence in order to put those ports back into operation immediately?


Mr. McCleave:: Explain.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Somebody has asked me to
explain. I will do the very best I can on both counts, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the very serious concern over the grounding and subsequent break-up of the Liberian tanker Arrow off the coast of Nova Scotia. Since the anti-pollution measures in Chedabucto Bay seem wholly inadequate, will the government consider closing the Canadian Arctic to tankers until adequate measures and safeguards for the delicate ecology of the Arctic can be developed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very soon, Mr. Speaker, there will be legislation tabled in the House which will deal with this general subject.



CHEDABUCTO BAY-PROCESSING OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question. How will the Canada Water Act or the new proposed legislation effectively cope with situations such as this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great concern in the area and having just come from there today, can the Prime Minister advise where the people in the area of Chedabucto Bay, including the town of Canso, should direct their claims for any damages resulting from this pollution?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Russell MacEwan: What is the answer?
February 9, 1970



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamillon West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the bottleneck caused by the underpass in Toronto at Jane Street and St. Clair Avenue. In view of the fact that the replacement of the dangerous and inadequate railway overpass on Jane Street in downtown Toronto has been jeopardized by the refusal of the Canadian Transport Commission to give financial aid of $750,000, is it the intention of the government to request the commission to give the full extent of the aid requested by Metropolitan Toronto?
Right Kon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport is due in the House I will refer this question to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is sitting there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's memory has just failed him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that minister is not due in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister apparently will allow the Minister of Transport to stand up and answer my question, I should appreciate hearing an answer to my question from the Minister of Transport.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member mind going back about ten minutes and starting all over again?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To make sure that there are no difficulties I shall repeat the question. In view of the fact that the replacement of the dangerous and inadequate railway overpass on Jane Street in downtown Toronto has been jeopardized by the refusal of the Canadian Transport Commission to give financial aid to the extent of $750,000, does the government intend to request the commission to give the full extent of the aid requested by Metropolitan Toronto, namely $750,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Since we have already spent about five minutes on the question perhaps I
Inquiries of the Ministry ought to allow the minister to answer. I suggest to the hon. member that normally such questions are placed on the Order Paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should think that a question such as this about one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in Metropolitan Toronto which has been the cause of numerous traffic accidents ought to be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a point of order. At the same time I have recognized that since we have spent about five minutes on the question the minister might be given an opportunity to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the reply to the question is very similar to the one I gave a few days ago. The whole question of assistance for the creation of overpasses is now being studied in the hope of finding a formula which will be far more adequate than the one at present existing. If the hon. member will look up Hansard of two or three days ago he will see that I gave the answer in more detail.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker I examined Hansard and the answer given on that day I believe it was Friday, does not seem to relate entirely to my present question. I am asking whether the minister is prepared to intervene in the matter and advise the Canadian Transport Commission to give full financial aid to Metropolitan Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: My
question is to the Minister of Transport. When the minister is studying the legislation concerning grants for railway overpasses and underpasses, will he take into full consideration the many representations made by my colleague, the hon. member for High Park, and my other colleagues from the city of Toronto in this regard?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the meeting sponsored by the Prices and Incomes Commission being held today and tomorrow. Have the organized con-
3356	COMMONS DEBATES	February 9# 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry sumers of the country been invited to sit in on this conference? If no such invitation has been extended to them, why have they been overlooked?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the conference being held today and tomorrow is for the Prices and Incomes Commission to obtain from the businessmen attending the conference a commitment with regard to a program of price restraint for 1970. It is they who must give the commitment and not the consumers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as our consumers have a very real interest in the outcome of the discussions, will the minister not consider permitting consumer representatives to sit in on the conference so that they express their point of view on the whole question of the rising cost of living?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department are at the conference and statutorily they represent consumers.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement to the House on motions at the conclusion of the conference?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the plan is that the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission will make a statement late tomorrow.



TIME OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION AND ORGANIZED LABOUR

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Following the conclusion of the meetings now going on between the Prices and Incomes Commission and representatives of management, when is it the intention of the chairman of that commission to approach again the leaders of organized labour?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House many times, this is an independent commission. After completing this series of meetings, the commission will be looking at other areas in the economy where a greater degree of restraint might obtain.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister attempting to convey the idea to the House that he and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission do not discuss these matters in imately? Is he trying to pretend that he does not know what the chairman of the commission intends to do later?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Oh, nonsense!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is argumentative.


George Harris Hees: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few moments ago when answering a question, because he did not have a communication from the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission the minister was not aware when the commission intended to reapproach organized labour. Would the minister speak to the chairman in the next 24 hours and report to this House the next time he is on duty?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I said, Mr. Speaker, that once this round of meetings is over and I am sure the hon. member will agree with me when I say I hope they will be successful, the commission will then be looking at other sectors of the economy where some form of restraint program could be worked out. Obviously, the area that the hon. member refers to is one of those areas.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission on this very important matter?



PARTICIPATION OF MOVIE INDUSTRY IN MEETING WITH PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Gray):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact recent news items have indicated that the cost of admission tickets to movies has added to the increased cost of living in Canada, is the movie industry participating in this retail price meeting in Ottawa? Has the minister discussed with them the tremendous increase in movie prices up about 70 per cent in the last 15 years?
February 9, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the movie industry was represented at today's meeting. I did not study the list of invitees that carefully. While I am sure hon. members are concerned about the prices of movies, and without degrading in any way the importance of obtaining reasonably priced entertainment, I think there are some other areas of the economy which have a priority position on the demands of the Prices and Incomes Commission.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, this item was in the recent report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They thought it was a contributor. Why does the minister not feel the same?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: A supplementary question. Would the minister mind investigating the movie being shown in a certain theatre on Rideau Street in the city of Ottawa to see if the people of Ottawa are getting value for their money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HARBOURS


Mr. Wal'er C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. On January 21 I asked the minister whether his department had received a request from the government of Newfoundland and a private industry for the provision of a docking facility at Come-By-Chance. I believe the minister replied that an application had been received but that certain information was not forthcoming from the private industry. Can the minister now say whether that information has been received and what the general situation is with regard to this matter?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have had no further word.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corpora* e Affairs. In view of the increasing demand by Canadians for information on the phosphate con ent of various detergent and soap products, will
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister publish a list of all detergents showing the percentage of phosphate which each detergent brand contains as a guide to those Canadians who want to start the fight against phosphate pollution now?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that question ought to be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is co-ordinating the government's anti-pollution program. I understand that recently such a table was published by Pollution Probe of Toronto.



WHEAT-STATEMENT RESPECTING REDUCED PRODUCTION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say when the minister who reports for the Wheat Board will be back in the House? Also, will he tell the House whether the minister was uttering government policy when he is reported to have said in London that farmers will likely be advised by the government to reduce wheat production in the next crop year and that the advice will be accompanied by an advance announcement of the wheat delivery quota for the new crop year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to consult with the minister about both these matters. He was away in London and I have not been in communication with him.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the representations made by the National Farmers Union in regard to the debt position of western farmers, is the government prepared to update the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in order to give the farmers some protection against excessive demands on the part of creditors?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any concrete proposal made with respect to this matter. However, it was raised by a number of other
February 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. members in the House several weeks limited liability within the waters under ago. The questions that were raised were Canada's control will be introduced in the reviewed thoroughly.	House as quickly as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister should really advise the House that there is a specific proposal in the form of a private member's public bill in my name before the House.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister in the very near future be able to report to the House on what action the government contemplates taking in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had taken the time to read the exchange that took place not only between the hon. member for Peace River and myself but between the Minister of Justice and others several weeks ago, it would have been worth his while. Perhaps he should have taken the time to look the matter up in Hansard.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING LOWER TRACTOR PRICES

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the major purchases may normally be expected during the next three months, does the minister propose to make an early statement in the House concerning the results of his negotiations with domestic and foreign tractor companies with regard to lower domestic prices in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope so, but I cannot predict at this point in time what the results of these discussions will be because they have not yet been completed.



POLLUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport, in view of the difficulty with the Arrow, whether it is the intention of the Department of Transport to revise the regulations regarding oil tankers operating in territorial waters and, if so, when may we expect these revised regulations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House some weeks ago, the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act which will extend un-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question was not directed to the matter of liability. I asked the minister whether it is proposed to introduce any new regulations restricting the operation of oil tankers within territorial waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if it appears likely that such restrictions would in fact help to prevent this kind of situation, we will be very glad to introduce them. In fact, the regulation under which we were able to order the destruction of this vessel was only introduced about six months ago. We are up-dating the regulations all the time. I am not at all sure any regulation would have, in fact, changed the situation. If it turns out through an investigation that is so, we will be glad to do it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary. Is it the intention of the minister to conduct or authorize an inquiry to determine immediately what regulations, if any, would be helpful?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, such an investigation is already under way as a matter of course. It always starts as soon as there is a wreck of this sort.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is to the Secretary of State. Will the minister inquire from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the reason for the CBC production last Saturday morning called "Action Set", directed at the young people of Canada, openly justifying and advocating race prejudice and race hatred? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's present legislation concerning hate literature.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter raised by the hon. member.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
February 9, 1970

to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the very welcome increases in the pensions of retired civil servants that are to come into effect in April, and in view of the fact that some of those who will get these increases are receiving the war veterans allowance, will the minister take the necessary steps to see that these increases are not deducted from the war veterans allowance in the same way as the minister has done with respect to the 2 per cent increase in the old age security pension?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to look into the matter with all possible sympathy.



DISCUSSION'S ON WOODS COMMITTEE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
-CONVENING OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister os Veterans Affairs. In a sense it is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In view of the merest of veterans across Canada in the report of the Woods Committee, can the minister report to the House the current status of discussions between his officials and those of the national veterans organizations? Also, when will the standing committee be in a position to reconvene?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, they have just about completed their discussions and they should report very soon to the committee. As soon as the committee has reported to the House we will be pleased to prepare legislation on this matter.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Having in mind the difficult conditions which exist in parts of western Canada, will the minister consider reviewing and re-examining all aspects of the regional incentive plan as it applies to these parts of western Canada so that some form of assistance may be provided?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I will bring this question to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: May I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the $130,000 which it is reported the Prime Minister proposes to give to the government backbenchers for "research". Is this being done in lieu of their request for salary increases?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the answer the minister has just given to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), to the effect that the decision to reduce by $10 million the Canadian Dairy Commission's budget is irrevocable, and also in view of the fact that the Committee on Agriculture will have to make recommendations to the government, does the answer given to the hon. member for Bellechasse mean that the committee need not trouble recommending to the government to review its position on the dairy policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Standing Committee on Agriculture is its own master and may decide what it wants to put in its report to this House.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of any plans on the part of the United States government to phase out its naval operation in Argentia?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have held consultations with the United States government concerning reports that they were planning to phase out their operation in Argentia, and we expect an announcement will be made soon by the Americans.
3360	COMMONS DEBATES	February 9# 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CHARGING OF FEE FOR ASSISTING PASSPORT APPLICANTS


William Marvin Howe: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with a recent news item in a weekly newspaper to the effect that for a fee of $5 a certain organization is willing to aid applicants for passports. Is the minister aware of this offer and, if so, what action does he intend to take? This concerns a fee for assisting people to obtain passports.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry. Would the hon. member repeat the first part of his question?


William Marvin Howe: I referred to a news item which appeared recently in my weekly newspaper. It indicated that a certain Ottawa organization is charging $5 to assist people to get their passport applications processed in approximately two days. Does the minister or the department approve of a commercial firm doing this?


Mitchell William Sharp: All I can say is that I would recommend that no one pay money for that purpose.


ACTION TO SPEED UP PROCESSING OF PASSPORT APPLICATIONS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has taken action to ensure that there will not be the same mix-up in the passport branch this year as there was last year?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have told the House on several occasions recently, we are opening offices in some of the principal cities of Canada outside Ottawa in the hope that this will expedite the issuing of passports, but I can give no undertaking that if the demand for passports increases in the order of 20 or 30 per cent, as it did last year, there will not be some delays. I think it would be quite impossible to handle the peak volume of business and issue passports in the same interval of time as would be required to deal with applications made today.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister inform the House whether some of his concern as to the ability of the passport office to handle these applications arises out of the government freeze with respect to hiring new staff?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister whether his department was looking into the fact that the companies handling automobile insurance were contemplating a general increase in premiums across the board. The minister said his department was looking into the matter. I want to ask him now whether this investigation has been completed and, if so, what action, if any, his department or the Prices and Incomes Commission propose to take with respect to this general across-the-board increase in car insurance rates?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer is the first of the alternatives mentioned by the hon. member; we have not yet completed our inquiries into this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister how soon he expects to complete the inquiry and whether he will be making a statement in sufficient time for it to have some effect on car insurance rates this travelling season? Does the minister hope he can do this fairly soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will have noticed from the Order Paper today, there are a number of motions proposed for the consideration of the House at this time. In conformity with the authority vested in the Chair under Standing Orders, I have looked at these proposed motions and I should like to suggest to the House in what order they might be considered and in what order the House might be invited to vote on them if and when a vote is required.
February 9, 1970

Motion No. 1, I believe, could be considered separately and, if necessary, voted upon as a separate proposal.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 should be grouped and disposed of as part of a single motion, and voted upon on the same basis.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 should be grouped and discussed as a single motion but, if necessary, three votes should be taken.
Motion No. 7 should be considered and if necessary voted upon separately.
Motion No. 8 is to be considered and voted upon separately if required.
Motion No. 9 should be considered and, if required, voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 should be grouped and considered together but, if required, a vote should be taken on each separate motion.
If hon. members agree to these suggestions we shall proceed on this basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make one brief comment? Speaking for my hon. friend from Greenwood, we certainly agree with your suggestions, and we might even go a bit further. Since they are consequential, some of these motions may not need to be put at all unless the prior motions are accepted. One hopes they will be. But we may save even more time than Your Honour expects.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no comments we shall carry on, procedurally, as I have suggested. We shall now consider Motion No. 1 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North. This will be debated and voted upon separately, if necessary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That Bill C-136, an Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by adding the words "and/or any Superior Trial Court of the Provinces of Canada" after the words "Exchequer Court of Canada" in paragraph (a), sub-clause 1 of clause 2.
He said: Basically, Mr. Speaker, this motion is a very simple one. It merely asks that under the new Expropriation Act the superior courts of the various provinces be given concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court. I may say at the outset of this debate that in the committee several amendments which had been proposed to the bill were accepted. This one was rejected in committee and I now move it here at this stage.
As members of the House appreciate, the bill is concerned with matters which fall directly within federal jurisdiction, particu-
Expropriation
larly when property is being expropriated by the federal authority for public works or other purposes. In support of this motion I would say at the outset that justice must be obtainable by all Canadians if there is to be any kind of just society. Economic disparity leads to judicial disparity. By this I mean that access to the courts often depends on the ability of a person to afford counsel to litigate in those courts. The law is the same for everyone in Canada. No one disagrees. But the implementation and application of the law are not the same. Those whose land has been expropriated by federal authority can only litigate, or continue to litigate, and hire the best counsel in the field, assisted by the best appraisers, if they have the economic worth which enables them to do so.
In the past we have tried to cure some of the problems, and giving the Exchequer Court sole jurisdiction in this field will put a lot of people behind the eight ball in that they will not be able to afford to litigate and will take settlements that they would not otherwise take. This is because litigation in many courts in Canada is now a luxury. Any changes in this regard are merely scratching the surface.
While on the subject of justice, I have talked about economic disparity leading to judicial disparity, and I have said that all Canadians are equal before the law. However, it is in the implementation of the law that we run into difficulty. Let me put this quotation on the record:
Of all the valuable things on earth, man is most valuable because he is an end, not a means. The revolution today is for him, that his dignity might at long last be realized on earth, as well as in heaven. No matter what his race, his colour, his country, his culture, or his religion or the lack of it, he is a res sacra, a sacred thing, a person who deserves better of this world if his inner dignity is not to be lost in the outer indignity of so much that is utterly unhuman in modem life.
I am going to try to bring forward evidence to show that by forcing claimants who cannot come to a settlement to go to the Exchequer Court you are asking many of them to get into the kind of luxury litigation that they can ill afford. A lawsuit involving $100,000 in the Exchequer Court can cost up to approximately $25,000. I recall a case in 1967 in which the judgment was recently handed down. I am making no complaint about the judge in this regard. There was some thought of going on with the litigation-I will deal with that a little later-but I want to present the taxed bill in that case as evidence today.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
I will refer to the minister's remarks in a few moments, but when he was speaking in the committee his main argument was that it was just as reasonable to litigate in the Exchequer Court as it is in the Superior or County courts of the provinces. Some of us have had experience in this regard and I say that, in light of my own experience, there is a big credibility gap between the minister and I.
In this case the judgment involved a little over $100,000. The case, tried in the Exchequer Court, was between Lake Louise Ski Lodge Limited, one Alfred Cooper and one Mary Boyle, and Her Majesty the Queen in the name of the former Department and Minister of Northern Affairs. The action concerned some land in Lake Louise which was expropriated, a case which went on for a considerable length of time. The taxable costs amounted to $3,412.44. They were the costs that were allowed by the court and were awarded to the successful claimant against the crown. The total costs, some of which were not allowed, between solicitor and client amounted to about $25,000. Some of those costs were disbursements with respect to engineers, and they were not allowed. For example, the appraiser's bill came to $7,000 odd and it was taxed at $4,746. That accounts in part for the difference between the $25,000 and the $13,000 allowed by the court.
The Exchequer Court has come a long way since I made my first speech about reforming that court's procedures and I know the minister has done a lot in this regard too. He has listened to the opposition, just as he listened to the opposition in the matter of the amendment respecting the Supreme Court of Canada. But in spite of these reforms that originated from the mouths of us on this side, I still say with great respect that the Exchequer Court is a very expensive court for the average man.


Mr. Blair:: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Does it not appear to him that his clients perhaps retained a very expensive lawyer?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) asked me that. The fact is that I am not talking about our costs. I realize the hon. member has had some experience with litigation, though perhaps not much. I am talking about costs which were taxed by the court. I am sure my

good friend from Grenville-Carleton would not suggest for one moment that the registrar and his officers would tax any costs which were not justifiable. He knows enough of procedure to know that. So I hope I have answered his question. Sometimes the most expensive article is the best article. I do not always contend that you get the best article by buying the cheapest.
May I draw an analogy. I remember a case involving the expropriation of an acre of land on which was a flowing well and for which the applicant was asking $100,000. The litigation in that case was decided in the provincial county court, since it involved a provincial matter. This case is reported. True, it is an old case and one has to allow for these days of inflation, but the case is Town of Tisdale v. Tisdale Rural Municipality, reported in 1949, 1 Western Weekly Reports, page 963. In that case, the costs were taxed at around $1,500, and for the information of, my good friend from Grenville-Carleton, who is interested in these matters, the solicitor and client costs were about $1,000.
So, my contention is that in litigation matters it certainly costs a lot less to go to the provincial courts than to the Exchequer Court. Although I appreciate you cannot have two identical cases, if some matter came before the Superior Court, the Supreme Court trial division of the province of Alberta, the Queen's Bench division in Saskatchewan, or indeed the Supreme Court of Ontario, the costs would not be taxed as high and the cost of the litigation would be less.
My good friend opposite shakes his head but I am just relating to him my experience. If he wants to stand up and put one of his reported cases on the record, then I would like to hear about it. I have looked pretty thoroughly through the reported cases but have not seen any case dealing with expropriation in which he, personally, has been engaged. If I am wrong in that, I stand to be corrected.


Duncan Gordon Blair: We settle them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hence, when the minister says that it costs less to litigate in the Exchequer Court, there is a large credibility gap between his experience and mine. I do not think there are any practical lawyers who would accept the position taken by the minister. I realize it is very difficult to get a lawyer to come forward and say he prefers one court over some other court, and we all know why this is. I am sure the minister will admit that
February 9, 1970

one has to be pretty careful when criticizing the courts or even when suggesting changes in court procedures.
If I might digress for a moment, I should like to say that in no way am I criticizing the Exchequer Court. I am just saying that in cases where the land of individuals in Canada is expropriated by the federal authority they should have the option to choose where to fight the case. The individual should be able to decide which is the cheapest avenue of litigation, the one that will give him the most for his money. Surely, that is what we call democracy. In my opinion, it is cheaper to litigate in the provincial courts.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Secondly there is accessibility to provincial courts which does not exist in respect of the Exchequer Court. When I speak of accessibility, I have in mind the new rules of the Exchequer Court which came into being about the time of the case to which I made reference. If you look through these you will see that these new rules of the Exchequer Court-the document known as, "Exchequer Court, General Rules and Orders"-are printed in English and in French, one language on each side of the page, containing about 443 pages and about 301 rules.
I do not have time to compare these rules this afternoon, but if you compare the English rules of court with Alberta trial courts you will find a tremendous difference. I am not being critical in that regard because the British have a highly sophisticated kind of practice that is not carried on in many of our Supreme and District Courts in the provinces. The Exchequer Court has a much more sophisticated practice, like the British Practice.
There is a case from Calgary now proceeding on the same basis as the one for which I was counsel.


John Napier Turner: What are the dates of those?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: These are the latest rules. They were brought up to date. I looked these up and, I do not wish to misrepresent, but I think it is 1968. These are the new ones and they were brought up to date in 1969 when a few changes were made. They were overhauled and I congratulate the President of the Court for this.
They were brought up to date but, as the minister knows, up to that time there were a lot of rules. They were difficult to ascertain, and I want to state that most lawyers who
Expropriation
have a case which has to go to the Exchequer Court, and that is the court to which it will go if this bill passes in the form it is, generally hire an expert, probably from Ottawa or Toronto, where the lawyers are more accustomed to dealing with this court. There is not so much litigation flowing from the small centres to the Exchequer Court.
I do not want to name the lawyers as I do not think it would be fair to them, but there is a case now proceeding from Calgary on the same basis. It involves expropriation of land in a National Park on which is situated a motel. A very able counsel in our provincial courts is representing the parties. He finally came to the conclusion, as a result of meeting with several problems in the court-and I say this without disrespect for the court-that he would have to get somebody who was accustomed to practicing in a sophisticated manner under these rules. As a consequence, he hired a man from Ottawa who was more familiar with Exchequer Court practice than other learned counsel from Calgary who were experienced in the courts there. The fact is that the rules are more complicated.
For example, let me point out one very great difference. In the ordinary case in the province of Alberta or Saskatchewan you know, through your practice of law, that you start with a statement of claim and then there is a statement of defence. You do not have all the niceties of joining issues. They are automa*ically joined under the rules of court. You finally hold a simple discovery, get an appraiser and set the case down for a date without all this nonsense of application. You hold the trial, the judge makes a decision and you get a judgment. That is how simple it is.
When you get into the Exchequer Court you do so by petition. That is a little different. You then have a defence filed, followed by various applications. In fact there are several applications necessary before you can go to trial. You then set the issues. I always thought that was what the pleadings were for, to set out the issue. That is why you should have good pleadings. If a judge comes along, after you have had the discoveries, and orders the issue defined, then you are fenced in. Many lawyers know that sometimes following the trial of an action the pleadings do not fit the evidence. There are lots of decisions on that. However, as long as it does not prejudice one side or the other the pleadings can be amended right there without any extra proceedings, cost or time. This is not so in the Exchequer Court.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
The Exchequer Court is a most sophisticated court because it has jurisdiction in respect of federal actions. I do not intend to get into that today. I say there is a whale of a difference between the Exchequer Court and a court sitting every week in Calgary holding trials or where applications can be made in chambers to perfect the proceedings for trial. This is where you obtain judges orders which are sometimes necessary as conditions precedent to having the matter heard in court. Much time is saved then or at a later date. The case is tried and you either get judgment or judgment is reserved.
Practicing lawyers are more familiar with their own courts, and they are more experienced there. Most lawyers in western Canada, Ontario and, indeed, in the Maritimes may be specialists in their own provincial courts, but not in respect of the rules which govern the Exchequer Court of Canada. These rules to which I have referred are entirely different. Most practicing lawyers may have one or two Exchequer Court cases in their lifetime, yet the rules and procedures are entirely different. Hence, as I said, such counsel have to hire outside lawyers in order to make sure their clients get justice. What average man can afford this luxury?
You must start an action in the Exchequer Court, as I said, by petition. In most courts you start the action by a statement of claim. This is a very simple process. Then, you have an examination for discovery. In many cases they are fishing trips to find out the strength of each side's case. You examine the opposite party to discover his knowledge of the case and determine the evidence.
In the case of an expropriation action, it is necessary to get an officer of the Crown appointed. If you cannot agree on the person you get a person named by a court order and the lawyer examines that person for discovery, and vice versa. When you use the provincial courts, the examination for discovery can be held at the local courthouse.
As I said in the beginning, there have been new arrangements, and you can now have examinations in Exchequer Court cases held in the local area, as in the Lake Louise case. I must say that the Crown was co-operative in that regard. The discoveries were held in Calgary, but this is the point I put to you. The discoveries were held in Calgary and the Crown sent out three counsel who lived in a nice hotel in that city. I agree they should stay in a nice hotel in my city. They were there for several days. Who paid

this cost? The minister says this was done to save the taxpayer's money. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no record of what it costs to send lawyers across the country to Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax or wherever it is, but it is expensive. The airfare return to Calgary is $212. These three individuals had to stay in the hotel there for a number of days. We do not know how many thousands of dollars it cost the Crown to hold these discoveries in Calgary.
If we had concurrent jurisdiction in our provincial courts we could save the taxpayers that money. If the Crown is going to spend that money, it would be better to give it to the claimant in the first place rather than waste the taxpayer's money. My friend laughs but these are arguments he cannot refute. They are correct. They are arguments based on experience with this kind of litigation.
There is another point I should like to mention regarding environmental knowledge. I am sure most hon. members will agree with me in this regard. A judge is not entitled to make a decision outside of the evidence he hears. He must base his decision on the evidence adduced of the value of the land which, in expropriation cases, is generally given by an appraiser. The judge may choose to accept the evidence given by the appraiser hired by the claimant or the evidence of the appraiser hired by the Crown. He may make a decision somewhere in between. The judge may also, as in one case, decide not to accept the evidence of either appraiser, but on the basis of his own opinion. In any event, the judge comes to a decision on the evidence.
The point I want to make is that the judge of a provincial court knows the environment, knows the site of the property, knows the economics of the province and knows the basic situation. I say that he could come to a decision that would be fair to the taxpayers of Canada and that would be fair in respect of the claimant much easier than someone who is more familiar with the situation here in Ottawa or elsewhere in Canada. So, I say that a judge from the environment in which the land and property is situated would have a greater built-in knowledge concerning the worth of a piece of land. In other words, a western judge would know more about western properties than would an eastern judge. And I believe that you would agree that an eastern judge would know more about land expropriated near Toronto for a federal project than would a western judge.
February 9, 1970

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: He would interpret the law on the evidence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but it is he who would decide the case. He would be entitled to use his environmental experience in interpreting that evidence and in coming to a decision. Why is there opposition to the suggestion? Why are the minister and other members of his party who seem to vote along party lines on this matter opposed to this suggestion?
I certainly cannot accept what the minister says so far as the cost is concerned. I will ask him this, and I should like to know his answer. Should not the average man be given the opportunity to litigate not in the Exchequer Court, which the minister says is great, but in a court which is more accessible to him and more familiar to him? Why should the great big state dictate to him where he is to get justice? Why is he refused? If by having a choice the litigation could be made cheaper for the average citizen and the lawyer who would advise him accordingly, why should the big state dictate the decision in that regard?
I should like to refer for a few moments to the second report of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dated November 25, 1969. I am referring to page 15, where I am reported as saying:
On a point of order, with reference to your argument as I can see the Minister and I do not agree, my experience and his before the Exchequer Court are absolutely opposite.
Then, the minister interrupted and said:
Yours has not been as happy as mine has, it must have been the cases.
I continued:
I am quite satisfied with the judgments. I have had two or three and I think they were just: they were pretty good judgments. I think one should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada-
Now, I should like to deal with that for a few moments and mention what it would cost to go to the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of this one case. We speak about the just society being just for the average Canadian. I say it is still a luxury to litigate. It is still the big corporations and the wealthy man who can afford to litigate. I admit I was dissatisfied with this particular decision. I wrote to the official court reporters of the Exchequer Court and I received a reply on July 4, 1967. My people had already had disbursements amounting to almost $20,000. That figure does not include any legal fees.
Expropriation
If these parties wished to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada what would it cost them? It would cost $4,894 to have the evidence printed. I am speaking from memory, but as my hon. friend knows something like 30 copies of the appeal book must be printed, including the factum. I find nothing wrong with this because one should expect this type of sophistication when dealing with a court as high as the Supreme Court of Canada. But when we are speaking of the cost of litigation we should consider the ability of the average man to appear before the average court in his home area where he can litigate at a reasonable price. I wish again to quote from the committee report:
However, I want to come back to the Minister's argument which, I think, was completely contrac-dicted by his last statement, with the greatest respect to him. If the Exchequer Court is all that he says it is, why did he for the first time to my knowledge say to me and to this Committee that he is going to bring in a reform bill to reform a court. If it is that good he would not need the reform.
That is what he said before the committee. He said, "I know we have problems". That is how he expressed it in his nice way-and he is nice. He said that judges will go across the land and hold hearings in chambers. They did that even before the present minister took office. This does not solve the problem of the cost. Then, as recorded in the committee report, I said:
I think in most Supreme Courts-I have not practised in the East, but I have practised in two Western provinces-the disbursements to get into a piece of litigation or to get into court on a piece of litigation would cost anywhere from $100 to $200, including the discovery-
On top of the $200, one would have to add the cost of the appraiser, but the total cost of the appraiser I must admit would probably not be any more in respect of the Exchequer Court than it would in respect of the county court. I do not wish to leave the wrong impression in that regard. I said:
I challenge the Minister and I am prepared to file a bill, a taxable bill, against the Crown which was taxed because we were successful-while I do not know the exact amount, I think he will find it cost around $15,000.
My bill was taxed at $13,412. Some disbursements were not allowed by the registrar who exercised his usual discretion. I continued:
The rules in our Supreme Courts in western Canada have been streamlined to fit the new circumstances and the demand for expedition, but the rules of the Exchequer Court as I read them, which are in a white practice book put out by the English

February 9, 1971
Expropriation
practice are pretty well the same kind of rules that have been operative in England for the last 100 years.
I do not wish to leave the wrong impression. In our Alberta and Saskatchewan courts, we have rules based on the rules of perhaps 100 years ago. But there has been a tendency in these courts to streamline the procedure.
In respect of divorces, for example, there is a backlog in most provinces because of the shortage of judges. I wish they would be appointed. In Alberta, if there is a lawyer on the other side, you can start the action on a Monday and be on for trial by Friday. However, in some of the provinces in the urban centres-and this is no criticism of the judges or lawyers-one sometimes has to wait as long as nine months. This is the reason I support the amendment. We must streamline our rules. Recently, I read an article by a well-known member of the Canadian Bar who said that if anything is backward it is the procedures of our courts and they must be streamlined because we have been living in the past. As I say, in my own province we are streamlining the courts and getting things done. I think we should be streamlining all our courts and getting on with the business of the nation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We could pass as many bills as we like here, but the test comes when we get down to the application. I said in the committee:
I would like to see the rules of the Exchequer Court brought before this Committee as well as the rules with reference to the Supreme Court trial division of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta and I think he would find that the rules of Alberta and the rules of Ontario are almost identical. 1 think he also would find that the rules of the Exchequer Court are more in line with the English practice-
I am not being critical; I am just being practical and telling the House what the facts are. I went on to say:
-which in Britain may be applicable to a place the size of Great Britain, but certainly work hardships as far as the individuals are concerned who have very little money in which to go before the Exchequer Court when their land is expropriated.
That is my position, but if the minister assures this committee that they are going to reform this court so it will serve the average Canadian, then I think I will have succeeded in getting something across-
As the minister promised the committee there would be, there has been a tremendous improvement recently in court procedures. So, the battle has not been totally lost.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
I want to read to the House what the minister said in answer to my comment, and this is where the credibility gap occurs. I have brought my documentation to the House this afternoon. I did not take it to the committee.


Duncan Gordon Blair: You had it in the committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not bring it forwarc in the committee. I intended to have it filed, but I did not.


Duncan Gordon Blair: You read it for 30 minutes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can read what my good friend said a few minutes from now, but I will not digress to bother with him. If he is not interested in justice for the average man, if he is more interested in representing big corporations here in Ottawa and across the country, let him speak for the rich. I am here to speak for the average man.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Well, well, well. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege simply because people reading Hansard would not realize the jocular manner in which my hon. friend spoke. I think that my hon. friend, knowing the profession and knowing the rules of this House, would not wish to cast personal reflection on anyone else.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not making any personal reflections, but if my hon. friend would just listen and, if he has an argument, would come forward with his argument, that would be better. If he is representing the poor, let him say so.


Howard Russell MacEwan: If the hat fits, wear it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not say that, but I did notice a little sensitivity there.
Just as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) said last night on television, the poorest people are to be found in the ghettos in Canada, and all they get is of poor quality; those people even get the poorest lawyers. That may be true. That is what I am trying to say here. I know the minister feels that way himself. He does not have an easy job, and I know his problems. I am certainly by no means being critical of him.
The minister said in the committee:
I cannot let some of these allegations against the Exchequer Court stand. I would be willing to file the schedule of fees and costs before the Exchequer Court-
I have them here and I am willing to file the schedule of fees and costs before the

February 9, 1970
Exchequer Court and before every provincial court. The minister went on to say:
-and I can assure this committee, certainly on the basis of the experience I have had-and I will take a gamble on this-that the taxable fees and costs in the Exchequer Court compare favourably and are in most cases less than the comparable costs in the superior courts of this country.
I disagree with what the minister said. There is a big credibility gap between my experience in western Canada and the minister's experience. He did not file this information with the committee. I make nothing of that, but I may say that at least I presented factual evidence here today, as to what I know and what lawyers feel, so far as the difference in costs is concerned.
Apart from all that, I should like to repeat one argument. If the minister is right, then why does he not give litigants the right to make the choice? I trust that the people of Canada whose land is expropriated, regardless of whether they are wealthy, have middle class incomes or average incomes, will go to the court which will serve them best economically. I have enough faith in their ability and that of the lawyers serving them to believe that this is what they would do. I would like to hear an answer to that.
In conclusion, I ask the House to support this amendment, and I ask the minister to reconsider his position, because I believe him to be a just man. I believe that he wants to serve the average man better in this regard.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, ever since I have been in this House of Commons I have heard the argument of the hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on the Exchequer Court. I want to say to him with frankness, yet discretion, that sometimes I cannot distinguish the argument from the autobiography of the various cases he has conducted with varied success before that court. It used to be that whenever the debate involved the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, estimates on national parks, or those of the Department of Justice, this question would come up.
I want to answer at the outset some of the arguments that the hon. member has attempted to submit to your Honour and to the House. In doing so, I wish to ask the House to recall that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealt with this question very thoroughly. The proceedings are available to the House. The arguments that were presented this afternoon by the hon. member
Expropriation
for Calgary North were presented then. The arguments which I will attempt to adduce in answer to him were given by me at that time before the committee.
He alleges, first of all, that the Exchequer Court is an expensive court, that it is more expensive to litigants than the supreme and superior provincial courts across Canada. I disagree very strongly. We introduced at the committee stage the taxable costs of the Supreme Court of Ontario as a representative provincial court as against the Exchequer Court of Canada, and item for item the Exchequer Court was cheaper and compared favourably with the Supreme Court of Ontario. The costs of the Supreme Court of Ontario are, in the main, comparable to the costs of other provincial or supreme courts across Canada.
When the hon. member speaks about taxable costs, I think he should be fair to the House and to the public in distinguishing those costs which are set forth in items as against particular proceedings in a court case beginning with a statement of claim, going through the motion stage and the interlocutory stage, the production of exhibits, and the rest of it. Those costs are fixed and itemized under the schedule of costs of each court in Canada. They are invariable and, as I said, on those invariable costs the Exchequer Court compares very favourably with the supreme and superior provincial courts of this country, and I adduced evidence to that effect.
As Your Honour knows, having practiced law yourself, other taxable costs that might be allocated as between the solicitor and the client are within the discretion of the taxing officer of the court or the discretion of the judge. Those costs depend very much on the difficulty of the case, the length of the case, its importance, the principle of law at stake, the preparation involved for counsel on both sides, and so on. They vary directly with the amount of effort put into the case by counsel and, at the discretion of the taxing officer or the judge, are awarded to counsel at the conclusion of the case.
It is all very well for the hon. member for Calgary North to bring in one of the cases in which he has appeared, but we do not know the subject matter of that case, how long it took him, how much money was at stake. We do not know the result of the case either, although I suspect it. We do not know any of those variable items. Really, what he is attempting to do is to induce the House to get into an apples and orange argument, that is to

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
compare one case which he happened to have had in the Exchequer Court as against a comparable case in the Supreme Court of Alberta.
I want to say also that when we look at the expropriation bill itself, which is the bill currently before the House, we should recall some of its provisions. Clause 36 (2) puts the question of costs in proper perspective because if the amount awarded by the court, if the matter goes to litigation, exceeds the amount offered by the Crown, costs are payable by the Crown on a solicitor and client basis. In other words, as a matter of law, if negotiation is unsuccessful, and a Canadian citizen involved refuses to accept the offer by the goverment of Canada as the price of his property to be expropriated, and on going to court obtains an amount from the court in excess of the Crown's offer, then all costs are payable by the Crown.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Clause 27 makes it quite clear that all legal costs and appraisal costs are allowable costs, not only in successful litigation but prior to litigation, and are added to the price of the expropriated property payable by the Crown. If the award by the court is the same or less than the offer of the Crown, the costs are discretionary and may be awarded by the court depending on the validity of the expropriated owner's case. Costs prior to litigation are automatically, by law, payable by the Crown. Those costs incurred in legitimate negotiation are payable by the Crown and, as I say, litigation costs are awarded automatically by the court if the offer by the Crown is less than the award by the court.
I want to repeat the argument I made in committee, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of the itemized costs of the Exchequer Court of Canada as against those of the superior courts of this country there is virtually no difference and, if there is any comparison, the comparison is in favour of the Exchequer Court. That evidence is before the committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What page is that?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member will find it, if he looks, and certainly after I have finished this speech I will consult with him. Although the hon. member was diligent in his attendance at the committee maybe he was not present on the morning that I introduced that evidence. In any event, the variable taxable costs which he talked about in an autobiographical way

would depend on the case he had, the amount of time and skill spent on preparation, and the amount of money at stake. I want to suggest to the House that that type of evidence which he offered is not too convincing.
The hon. member went on to say that the Exchequer Court of Canada was not as accessible to litigants as the superior courts of the provinces, and that its rules were more complicated than those of the superior courts.
I would point out that its rules have just been revised and recently published in both official languages. As the hon. member knows, I have had my share of practice before the Exchequer Court. I have compared its new rules with those of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the hon. member has admitted today that the rules in Alberta are very similar to the Ontario rules. I have also compared them with the rules of the Supreme Court of Quebec, and I say that they compare favourably in terms of speed and availability of the court to the average lawyer.
The rules may be slightly different in Alberta, and I want to congratulate the Chief Justice of the Alberta Supreme Court if its rules are as expeditious as the hon. member says, because elsewhere in Canada provincial courts do not enjoy that happy situation. The time of delay for a civil trial in Montreal runs from two to three years, and in Toronto it is about the same. In most of our major cities, there is a considerable delay between setting an action down for trial and the actual hearing of the case before a superior court.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is an awful admission to make. Why don't you appoint more judges?


John Napier Turner: It is not a
question of appointing judges. This is something that I and my brother Attorneys General across the country will be discussing on a future occasion because, as the hon. member knows, the daily administration of the courts is within their jurisdiction and not mine directly.
To get back to the Exchequer Court of Canada, normally a case can be set down for trial within two or three months after issue is joined. The hon. member knows that. He admits that the Exchequer court now goes on circuit. It travels right across the country. A trial before it is available in all major centres. It is not necessary for lawyers and their clients to come to Ottawa to plead their cases before the Exchequer Court. Motions can be heard at any major city in Canada. Whenever an interlocutory proceeding is necessary, the court will send a judge to hear that matter.
February 9, 1970

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
experience in dealing with this type of complicated matter. The court has shown a strong inclination to adapt its rules to meet the needs of particular cases. It has modernized its rules and decentralized its hearings, both at the interlocutory and final stages of legal proceedings. It has brought the court closer to the people.
I want to introduce into the chamber for the attention of hon. members of the House a summary of some of the evidence presented by Mr. Jack Weir, former president of the Canadian Bar Association, who practises in Toronto and who was the chairman of a special committee set up by the Canadian Bar Association to look at this bill. Mr. Weir presented the committee report of the Canadian Bar Association and recommended some amendments to the bill before the committee. Some of those amendments were accepted; others rejected. In the afternoon of Mr. Weir's presentation the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) asked him for his views about the problem of concurrent jurisdiction. Mr. Weir showed no enthusiasm whatsoever for that and he emphasized a number of points which may be seen if one peruses the evidence given before the committee. He said that the Exchequer Court rules have been and are being radically revised, and that there no longer appears to be a problem with regard to expert evidence. He said that the court has shown an increasing willingness to move around the country and to make itself available to the people of Canada and the legal profession of this country.
He said costs were not a real problem and he went through some of the arguments I have attempted to submit to Your Honour. He observed that the main objection to the Exchequer Court stemmed from the reluctance of some members of the bar to go before that court because some lawyers are not as familiar with it perhaps as they are with some other courts. In any event, these are the arguments that were presented by the government at the committee stage. The committee accepted these arguments and rejected the amendment brought forward at the committee stage by the hon. member for Calgary North. I urge the House to do the same.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I propose to speak only briefly on this question. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is important because it expresses not only his views but views which are held by members of the bar elsewhere in Canada

and, I think, especially in western Canada. The problem which faces a person who is expropriated is very definitely one of expense and of cost.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I am sure that there are other hon. members of the House besides myself who have dealt with people who have been expropriated. It strikes the average citizen as most severe and most unfair for the biggest organization in the country, his government, to come to him and say, "We want your land. If you want to challenge our valuation, you must sue us." This has been the law for many, many years, and the man who wanted to challenge the expropriation, who wanted to challenge the valuation, up till now had been put to the necessity of going to great expense, which generally he could ill afford, in order to mount a case. I therefore think that when we talk about the expense of litigation we should think of that in terms of the average citizen and what he must spend. We are not really learning too much if we divert our attention from this idea because it does not matter whether he spend that money in one court or another.
To me, the most significant and important reform in this legislation is that contained in clauses 27 and 36 to which the minister referred. They really provide for the underwriting of the legal expenses of a person who wishes to challenge the basis upon which he is expropriated.


John Napier Turner: That is
right.


Duncan Gordon Blair: This is a tremendous advantage and one which I think will bring credit to this Parliament. If the bill passes, great credit will accrue to parliament. The citizen, under the provisions of clause 27, will now be able to mount a position against the Crown which is comparable to the position the Crown could assume against him. He may now retain a lawyer and he may retain experts sufficient to establish his point of view in negotiations with the Crown. If he is dissatisfied with the outcome of these negotiations, then he is in a position to challenge the valuation in legal proceedings and, if he wins, he will not only recover part of his legal expenses and other costs but he will be entitled to claim them all. I make these comments because I have been struck by the exaggerated emphasis placed by my hon. friend for Calgary North on the cost of proceeding in the Exchequer Court. In my
February 9, 1970

experience, the Exchequer Court is certainly a less expensive court in which to litigate than the Supreme Court of Ontario. Perhaps this view is personal to me and, as the minister said, we may get into difficulty when trying to generalize from our own personal experience.
The problem of legal expenses is a great one in Canada and we lawyers may be criticized, and 1 think justifiably, for not having paid sufficient attention to it. At any rate, we can deal with this bill with the knowledge that for the first time, so far as I am aware, a statute of the Parliament of Canada will place a citizen in a position where he may deal more or less as an equal with the Crown.
There is little that I can add to the comments made by the minister about some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. The costs of litigation are governed by two factors: by the value a lawyer may place upon his services and by the cost of producing exhibits and documents for presentation to a court. If a lawyer places a high value on his services and if he indulges in costly and elaborate case preparation, the risk is always run that in the event of success these costs may not be recoverable from the opposite party. This holds true whether the case is pleaded in the Exchequer Court or any other court in this country. According to my experience, and I think this is generally the experience of members of the bar of Canada, it costs no more to mount a case in the Exchequer Court and it is unfair to suggest that it does. The same type of preparation is entered into; the same types of basic steps are taken procedurally and otherwise and the formalities of litigation there are little different from those of other courts. I wish to again emphasize that the over-all cost of litigation depends upon how elaborate the cases are which are prepared and the costs of legal fees. These operate independently regardless of in what sort of court the cases are conducted.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One suggestion made by the hon. member I think bears comment. He pointed to the expense of appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. His argument seemed to suggest that it would be more costly to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against a decision of the Exchequer Court than to a Provincial Appeal Court. This manifestly is not the case. Regardless from what tribunal an appeal is
Expropriation
taken to the Supreme Court, the costs of that court for preparation and other procedures are uniform.
I have made these rather extended comments about the Exchequer Court, Mr. Speaker, because I have had experience in that and other courts. I do not think any impression should be left on the record that it is a more expensive tribunal than other courts in this country. As I suggested earlier, the opposite is felt by many experienced members of the bar.
There are difficulties in taking technical cases to any court in Canada. One should recognize the fact that the law of expropriation has now become a very specialized branch of legal practice and legal knowledge. It is certainly not within the capacity of every lawyer to deal with the complicated issues involved in expropriation. I am fortified by the provisions made in this statute for the provision of legal aid in the belief that ordinary citizens will now seek the best counsel and best advice in these cases.
I wish to make two brief comments about issues which have been raised by my hon. friend. Although I jogged him a little bit by my interruptions, I think the points he made are serious and have been seriously considered by the committee. There is always the problem among members of our profession of approaching a strange tribunal. There is also the problem of adapting one's ideas to the rules of that tribunal with which we may not be familiar. I have felt that the Exchequer Court, perhaps because of its extraordinary name, has seemed to be somewhat remote, not only from the average citizen but the average lawyer of this country.
In recent years the Exchequer Court has gone to extraordinary lengths in an attempt to make itself physically accessible to the different parts of Canada. I hope the authorities of that court will take some cognizance of the comments which have been made by the hon. member for Calgary North as to differences in procedure which, although they may appear minute, do cause complications and difficulties for practising members of the legal profession. I might add for the benefit of the hon. member for Calgary North, as the minister said recently, there have been very drastic changes made in the procedure of the Exchequer Court. I have heard lawyers of long experience in that court express concern at the way in which the rules have been streamlined and the way in which procedures have been expedited.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
It appears to me that the argument is unanswerable that it is in the national interest to have one court dealing with this complicated question of expropria.ion by the federal government; to have that one court establish a common jurisprudence and common principles which will apply across the country and to have that one court make its expertise and experience available to citizens in every part of Canada.
In addition there are procedural complications which will arise if the jurisdiction is divided because parties affected by the same expropriation could then conceivably enter proceedings in different courts with great expense to everyone concerned. I look forward to the day when the federal courts of this country will be present in every part of the country. I think it is important from many standpoints that we should expand the physical presence of the federal courts, having regard to the important matters with which they deal such as expropriation, patents and trade marks, taxation, suits against the Crown and many other items of great importance to the public.
I look forward to the introduction of legislation such as has been commented upon by the minister which will take our federal courts more to the people and make them more important in the life of Canadians. In view of these comments, Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that it is desirable to reject the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Pursuant to

agreement made earlier this day, I now propose to put motions 2 and 3. They will be debated together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: (2)	That Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out of clause 8(1) all the words after "public hearing" in line 37 of the bill and substituting the following:
"to ascertain, having regard to the objection or any other objection to the intended expropriation that has been served on him, whether the interest proposed to be expropriated is reasonably required for the achievement of the objectives of the Crown".
and
(3)	That Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land be amended by the deletion in clause 8(2), lines 42 and 43, of the words:
"with respect to an objection or objections".
He said: Mr. Speaker, when one is about to go beyond his depth, it is a good idea to admit it at the start. It so happens that my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) had a prior engagement in the west today. He is, therefore, not able to be here to present this proposed amendment. My training in the law has all been obtained right in this place, Mr. Speaker, so I am getting into something with which I am not particularly familiar.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe I see the point of the amendment of which notice was given by my hon. friend from Greenwood and I do think it is one which should be made. I understand the amendment was moved in the standing committee and that it was supported there by a number of individuals across party lines.
To explain the proposals as clearly and succinctly as I can, perhaps I might be permitted to read clause 8 (1) as it stands and then to read it as it would appear if the amendment were adopted. Clause 8 (1) as it stands reads as follows:
Forthwith after the expiration of the period of thirty days referred to in section 7, the Minister shall, if he has been served with an objection under that section, order that a public hearing be conducted with respect to the objection and any other objection to the intended expropriation that has been or may be served on him.
The proposed amendment would alter the last few lines, so the subclause would read:
Forthwith after the expiration of the period of thirty days referred to in section 7, the Minister shall, if he has been served with an objection under that section, order a public hearing to ascertain, having regard to the objection or any
February 9, 1970

other objection to the intended expropriation which has been served on him, whether the interest proposed to be expropriated is reasonably required for the achievement of the objectives of the Crown.
As I understand it, what we are seeking by this amendment is an arrangement under which the Crown would be called on to appear at such a hearing and, in effect, show cause for a proposed expropriation. The feeling of those who support the amendment is that though the clause as it stands provides for a public hearing, it does not place the two parties on an equal plane. A public hearing is held, all right, provided a notice has been filed with the minister in accordance with clause 7, but at this public hearing it is not really necessary under the wording as it now stands for the Crown to appear. In other words, the person whose land is being expropriated is able to make his case and give reasons why the expropriation order should not go through, but the Crown for its part is not required to appear and make it clear that a particular parcel of land is really required in the public interest, or in order that the government might achieve the objective it has set out. My hon. friend feels, and I agree with him, that if we are changing the law with regard to expropriation, the Crown should be required to appear at a public hearing of this sort.
It seems to me that what is proposed is eminently fair. If this amendment is not adopted, the person whose land is to be expropriated is not on the same footing as the authority which is trying to expropriate his land. The motion I am putting forward in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood would correct this situation.
I might point out that amendment No. 3, which Your Honour has already read, together with amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, is consequential. Once we have decided on amendment No. 2, the others fall into place. If we pass amendment No. 2, it is obvious we shall want to pass the other amendments because they are consequential. If the House does not see fit to accept the amendment before us, I see little point in even moving the other amendments. The proposal we are now considering would put the Crown in the position of having to give reasons before a public hearing in support of proceeding with an expropriation and I feel it ought to receive the support of the House. As I say, I understand there were members in all parties who supported this proposition in the committee. I do not know what the vote was, but I am told there was support from all sides. I hope that
Expropriation
since then, consideration having been given to this matter by the government, a favourable decision has been reached.
We are all impressed by the fact that new law is being written in this field. We give credit to the government for the initiative it has shown. We suggest, however, that the government go all the way and that in these public hearings the Crown should be on the same footing as the person whose property is being expropriated. This is the purpose of the amendment presented by my hon. friend from Greenwood, as I understand it, and I wage that it be adopted.


John Napier Turner: First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is not a member of the committee; he is filling in for his hon. friend from Greenwood who is a member, at very short notice, I am sure. He has admirably explained the purpose of the amendment to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the advantage of not having been a lawyer.


John Napier Turner: He says that is the advantage of not being a lawyer. But I believe he has been in the House for so many years that some of the legal talent available in the chamber has rubbed off on him.
The purpose of the amendment and, indeed, of amendments Nos. 2 to 6, because, as the hon. member noted, they stand together, is that the Minister of Public Works should be represented at the hearings in support of proposed expropriations, and that the hearing officer should form an opinion on the merits.
With respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I suggest he is confused as to the purpose of the public hearing. The concept of a hearing in connection with expropriation legislation is new. The purpose is to allow those who have an interest in the expropriated property to make their objections heard in public. In addition to owners, planning boards, municipalities or regional governments might wish to object. The hearing officer would listen to those objections and make a report to the Minister of Public Works. The hearing is not a judicial inquiry; it is not an adversary procedure pitting the minister against the expropriated owners or others interested. The purpose of the hearing is to bring to the public's attention the objections and the reasons for those objections. The purpose is not to force the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of the people of

February 3, 1970
Expropriation
Canada, to a trial of necessity. The Minister of Public Works will be responsible for the expropriation to his colleagues and to the Parliament of this country, and that is a responsibility he will have to accept. His responsibility will be a political one, not a judicial one, because the decision to expropriate is, in the first instance, an administrative decision for which he bears political responsibility here.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The purpose of the hearing is to allow citizens an opportunity to be heard so that the minister may, if he considers it reasonable and in the interests of the public, reconsider his decision to expropriate the property in question, or part of the property, or to expropriate the property under a different time frame. He can reject the objections. He can reject the report of the hearing officer. In doing so he would, of course, be responsible to defend his ultimate decision before Parliament, and thus before the people of Canada.
I submit to Your Honour that amendments Nos. 2 to 6 proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood attempt to convert the public hearing into a judicial proceeding, which it was not meant to be. It is meant to be an opportunity for interested people, whether or not they have an actual interest in the land in question, to make their objections heard.
I want to put on record a communication that I made to Mr. Jack Weir, who was the chairman of an ad hoc committee of the Canadian Bar Association which made a submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that tended to support the idea of converting the hearing into a judicial inquiry rather than an opportunity to present objections. This communication was sent to him in the form of a letter on December 17, 1969 and reads in part as follows:
Whatever considerations may apply in the case of expropriation by statutory bodies, it is my firm view that in the case of the Crown in right of Canada the decisions as to whether any land is required for federal public purposes and as to what land is required for those purposes are political decisions and must be made by the responsible minister of the crown. The exercise of the minister's responsibility must not be fettered in any way by the publication of the opinion of any official as to the merits of the matter, or by the review of his decisions by any tribunal other than the House of Commons.
For those reasons I cannot agree that the hearing officer should express any opinion upon the merits of the proposed expropriation, and I note that at page 1008 of the McKuer report it is said that: "Since the officer is not to have a decisional role in the procedure, it is with some reluctance that we recommend that he express an opinion on the merits".

I continue in my letter to Mr. Weir:
I am not satisfied that the reasons given in the report for overcoming the reluctance to make that recommendation outweigh the reasons to the contrary which apply in the case of expropriation by the crown in right of Canada.
I might say that in his report Chief Justice McRuer dealt with expropriation procedure in right of the crown for the province of Ontario, and a good deal of his observations related to the power to expropriate now in the hands of regional, municipal and statutory bodies, other than the province itself.
After due consideration the committee rejected the amendments moved by the hon. member for Greenwood, and again I would urge the House to follow the decision of the committee and reject the amendments now before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
Consistent with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I might suggest to the House that discussion on Motions 4, 5, and 6 be deferred until a decision has been taken on Motions 2 and 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to agree to that suggestion. We can wait and see the outcome of the vote on Motions 2 and 3. If the vote is favourable, I will then move motions 4, 5 and 6. If the vote is unfavourable on motions 2 and 3, then obviously there would be no point in moving motions 4, 5 and 6. I just want to protect the right to move motions 4, 5 and 6 if we are fortunate enough to get a favourable decision later this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that is understood. Agreed.


John Napier Turner: That Bill C-136, an act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out line 21 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"interest, and a copy of the appraisal shall".
February 9, 1970

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have ever tailed to accept a committee's decision at the report stage. With other bills for which I have been responsible, such as the Official Languages bill and the omnibus Criminal Code amendments, even where the decision went against me, I accepted the decision. However, in this case there were some rather peculiar circumstances, although I am making no reflection on anyone. There was a fast motion made and a fast vote taken. Before the minister or the committee had really realized what had happened the vote had been taken, and the committee refused to reopen the proceedings. Therefore, the only way I can have the matter properly tested is to bring it to the attention of the House as a whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Amendments are not faring very well today.


John Napier Turner: The earlier amendments were given full and weighty consideration by the committee. This amendment was voted upon in rather a shotgun fashion before I had the opportunity to address myself to it-indeed, before the committee as a whole had thoroughly discussed it.
This subclause was amended in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The purpose of the motion that I am making is to restore it to the form in which it appeared upon first reading of the bill. This subclause is an integral part of the legislative scheme incorporated in the bill.
Clause 14(1) imposes upon the minister an obligation to offer to pay each expropriated owner the full amount of the minister's estimate of the compensation payable to him without prejudice to the right of the owner to claim additional compensation. That offer is generally to be made within 90 days of the registration of the notice of confirmation. If it is not made within that period, the owner is entitled to additional interest under clause 33 (4).
If the offer made by the minister is less than the compensation adjudged to be payable, then the owner is entitled to interest at the basic rate on the difference, and in addition, if the offer is less than 90 per cent of the compensation adjudged to be payable, the owner gets interest at the rate of 5 per cent of the total compensation payable. That is provided by clause 33 (3).
On the other hand, if the minister's offer exceeds the compensation adjudged to be payable, the excess constitutes a debt due to 21701-4
Expropriation
the Crown by the owner. That is provided by clause 32. So it is clear that it is in the interest of owners that the offers made by the minister not exceed the compensation determined to be payable by the court, if the matter goes to court, because the excess would have to be paid back to the Crown and the Crown could sue for it. It is also in the interest of the Crown, and the people of Canada, that the offers be as close as possible to the compensation adjudged to be payable in order to avoid the payment of excessive interest by way of penalty.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In order for owners to decide whether to claim additional compensation in the Exchequer Court they should, of course, know the precise basis upon which the minister has calculated the offer, and clause 14(3), as it read before amendment in the committee, requires the minister to send, together with the offer, a copy of the written appraisal upon which the offer is based.
The committee saw fit to amend this provision by requiring the minister to send with the offer copies of all appraisals which he may then have. It is my view that the amendment will tend to frustrate the purposes of the bill. I think all members will appreciate that the appraisal of land is not an exact science, and appraisers frequently differ widely in their opinions as to the value of the same lot or parcel of land. It is obviously desirable, therefore, for the Crown to obtain more than one appraisal and to obtain them at as early a date as possible in order to facilitate advanced planning of public works and the making of prompt payment to expropriated owners.
It is in the interest of the Crown and the owner that the Crown obtain a variety of opinions. If only one appraisal were to be obtained it might be much too low, and an offer made on that basis could well deprive the expropriated owner of early payment of the full compensation to which he is entitled. In addition, it would subject the Crown to the payment of penalty interest. On the other hand, if there were only one appraisal it could conceivably be much too high, and an initial payment of compensation on that basis might result in the owner being subjected to legal proceeding by the crown to recover the difference between the compensation adjudged to be payable and the amount of the payment to him.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
However, if more than one appraisal is obtained, the minister may well feel that one of them is substantially too high and he will not wish to make an offer on the basis of that appraisal. That would be not because he was not prepared to pay the owner the full value of his property, because it is in the Crown's interest that he come as close as possible to the true value in making his offer. The minister may genuinely believe that one of his appraisals prepared for him is erroneous, as they frequently are, and does not represent the true value of the property.
In such a case, obviously the minister would not want to disclose the erroneous appraisal to the expropriated owner, because while it may be in the minister's view erroneous, owners are not generally knowledgeable about such matters and they may feel they should be paid the amount of the highest appraisal. This would tend to make negotiations of a settlement next to impossible, and there would therefore be a reluctance on the part of the department to disclose any appraisal thought to be unreasonably high.
If the clause were not to be readjusted as it was, and if this amendment were not carried, it might well be that the Department of Public Works or other departments, because of the necessity to obtain as wide a range of opinion as possible and because of the difficulty of submitting only one report, would resort to subterfuge in obtaining oral appraisals. I do not believe this bill now before us should promote that sort of thing. The officials should be free to obtain proper appraisals and disclose only that appraisal which the minister regards as reflecting the true value of the premises, and upon which he is prepared to base his offer.
After all, the purpose of producing an appraisal is to allow the owner, the owner's appraisors and the owner's legal representatives to analyze the basis upon which the value is calculated, and for the minister to estimate the true value as calculated. If the clause stands as amended, the minister may obtain only one appraisal with all the attendant risks to both owners and the Crown resulting from offers based on erroneous appraisals. If the offer is too low, the Crown will have to pay a penalty. If the offer is too high, the owner will have to refund to the Crown that which is in excess of the offer made initially by the Crown. In any event, an offer too high or too low based on only one appraisal might well result in a failure of the negotiation procedure under the bill being as useful as it is intended to be.

In short, as amended by the committee, the provisions will not really work in the interest of either the owners or the Crown, and may tend to promote the use of devious means by administration of the bill. For these reasons I proposed the amendment which will restore the clause to its original form. I hope that upon sober reflection those members of the committee who beat us to the punch will duly consider their position.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment which are as follows: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-complaints respecting harassment of Portuguese ships; the hon. member for Abiti-bi-construction of access road, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-Immigration-Deportation of deserters from U.S. Armed forces.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed an today's Order Paper, namely Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take initiatives for United Nations Charter reform to make that institution a more effective instrument for the prevention of military aggression, for the settlement of international dis-
February 9, 1970	COMMONS
putes, and to promote co-operatton, peace and prosperity and in particular, to seek amendments to the Charter articles dealing with peacekeeping, the veto power, financing, membership and arms' control.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this century the peoples of the world have suffered two horrible major wars. Since the end of the last World War there have been 48 major and minor wars. These wars have resulted in a horrible loss of life, great losses of property and the waste of large sums of money and resources. We have just finished a terrible civil war in Nigeria. After 30 months of fighting and killing, many people in the world might ask what has been accomplished? What do wars accomplish in settling disputes between peoples and nations?
Many people throughout the world, not just in Canada, ask what we can do about this, and what can individuals do about this. They ask if this waste and destruction is necessary in this age when we can travel to the moon, when we can transplant hearts and kidneys, when we can transmit information throughout the world by satellite and when we have computers than can calculate in a millionth of a second work that used to be done in hours. They ask why cannot man come up with a civilized way of preventing military aggression and doing away with wars as a means of settling international disputes.
In 1945 there was great hope for the world when the United Nations adopted the UN Charter. I think one of the greatest documents ever adopted by mankind is the preamble of that Charter which states:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind-*
It goes on to say that they have come together to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security. Unfortunately, despite the good intentions of 1945, the UN Charter and the United Nations have not been able to guarantee to the world the security and peace it desires. This is not to say that the United Nations has been a failure. I think it has been of much value. Many people criticize it for being inadequate and want to do away with it altogether. I think that would be a real mistake. Had we not had the present United Nations, I believe perhaps we would have had more major wars since 1945. The very fact that these nations can come together to talk out their problems is an indication of some success. At least they are talking and not shooting and killing. I think 21701-
DEBATES	3377
United Nations Charter Reform this in itself is of value. But despite this, the security we hoped for back in 1945 has not been provided. I should also like to point out that much of the good work being done by the United Nations today is work which was not fully contemplated in 1945. About 80 per cent of the good work done by the United Nations is in the economic field and is carried out by the specialized agencies.
Despite this I say to this House, this government, this country and this world, that we must devise some system whereby we can minimize war and if possible do away with it as a means of settling disputes. I believe the United Nations Charter should be reformed. When the present charter was adopted in 1945 there were only 51 members of the United Nations. Now there are 126. In Chapter XVIII of the Charter, there are provisions for amending the Charter, but the provisions have not been used as fully as many people would like. In my resolution I propose reform of the United Nations under certain headings.
First of all, I refer to peacekeeping. Because that is one of the most complex areas, I will leave it to the end along with the heading arms control. Let me go on to the second matter which is the veto power. Under Article 27(3) of the United Nations Charter the Security Council cannot act unless it has the unanimous support of all five permanent members. As the world knows, the power to veto action at the United Nations by one of the big five has often frustrated the United Nations and the world in their efforts to take the necessary action.
I suggest, to begin with, that we amend the Charter to provide that the Security Council be increased from 15 members to 17 members; that we have 7 permanent members instead of 5 and that the two new permanent members be Japan and Brazil. Of course, I believe it goes without question that the real government of China must replace the present government of China; that is, the Republic of China represented by the government in Peking must replace the present government which is represented at the United Nations if we are to have a truly representative Security Council. I suggest a Security Council with 17 members and 7 permanent members, including the real government of China, Japan and Brazil. I suggest also that the single veto power be taken away and replaced by a veto power of five permanent members. I feel that a veto power of five permanent members would give a much more representative value to the actions of the Security Council because if you do have five
February 9, 1970

United Nations Charter Reform permanent members objecting to some action this would mean that you really have five of the most powerful and populous nations in the world objecting and that, therefore, you would not succeed in any event.
The next point I should like to refer to is in respect of the financing of the United Nations. Article 17 of the Charter provides for financing. At the present time the United Nations is financed through assessments against the member states plus other smaller sources such as the sale of United Nations stamps at New York and Geneva. This, however, is wholly inadequate. I think the amount of money that is spent on the United Nations is ridiculous in comparison with the amount spent on armaments. I suggest that in addition to increasing the amount of the assessments the United Nations, under its Charter, should have the power to collect licence fees for such things as exploitation of the seabed, the use of outer space by satellites, other missiles and so on. These international areas should be subject to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The United Nations should have the right to collect revenue for the use of these areas in order to support its work. I would also think that if nations refuse to pay their contributions to the UN for the purpose of furthering its powers their voting right should be suspended. There has been much discussion concerning what should be done about those nations which do not pay their contributions.
Next, I should like to refer to membership. Membership comes under Chapter II, Article
3.	I believe one of the main drawbacks in this article is that it does not provide for the very small or divided state. I think there should be provision in the Charter for the divided states. I believe there should be some type of associate membership so that Germany, Korea, Viet Nam and other states which have been divided could be included. They would not be given the rights and responsibilities of full membership, but I think it is important that they be given an opportunity to participate in the United Nations at least as associate members. There should also be provision for very small states, the micro-states. The Maidive Islands is a state with 30,000 people. There are other independent states in the Caribbean which I believe have populations of fewer than 30,000 people. There should be some way in which such states could participate without being full members and without having full responsibilities because they would not be in a position to bear these responsibilities.


o (5.10 p.m.)
Next, I wish to refer to the matter of peacekeeping and arms control. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter provides for peace keeping. However, some of the most important aspects of our peace keeping activity have not been carried out under that chapter. They have taken place under the various "uniting for Peace" resolutions of the General Assembly which came into existence after the outbreak of the Korean war. It is generally agreed that our peacekeeping operations,- and this has been agreed especially after the 1967 war in the Middle East-should be strengthened and even brought beyond the strength which it originally had when UNEF was first set up. I suggest that amendments should be made to the United Nations Charter to establish a permanent core group for the UN peace forces. This core group would be under the direction of the Secretary General of the UN and a special peacekeeping section of the secretariat. It would be recruited from people throughout the world. It would be paid directly by and be responsible to the United Nations, in the way that all the other staff of the UN is recruited. After all, the UN secretariat has quite a large staff, both in New York and Geneva, which is recruited from peoples of the world. I suggest that the core group of the UN peacekeeping force should be recruited and paid in the same way.
In addition, this group would deal with the administration of the peace force, communications operations, logistics, police duty, and other services which must be at readiness in case of an emergency. The national forces which are committed to peacekeeping should be earmarked by the nations of the world in a much more firm way than they are now. I discovered at a meeting of the subcommittee of the Committee on External Affairs of this House that a unit of our national forces is earmarked for the United Nations but that this commitment is not as firm as our commitment to NATO, for example. I feel that it should definitely be as firm.
With regard to arms control, if we can develop a strong peacekeeping force, then the general disarmament which the United Nations has been trying to bring about would be much easier to achieve. I think that we will have a general and phased disarmament if we are able to increase the power of the peacekeeping force.
February 9, 1970

There are many areas in the United Nations Charter to which I could suggest amendments, but I pointed out only five. I would like to point out that 1970 is the year of the 25 th anniversary of the UN Charter. It will be celebrated this year on October 24. I think that we can really mark this 25 th birthday in a meaningful way by taking some measures to strengthen that organization and by doing something to secure peace in the world. I think that we should celebrate this birthday in a meaningful way, not just with a mere ceremony.
Some people say that we can do many of the things I suggested without reforming the UN Charter. It may be that some of my suggestions can be implemented without such charter reforms, but I think we need the emphasis and the certainty of the direction in which the United Nations should go by charter reform.
Others may say in objection to my suggestions that these things cannot be done right away, that there is too much disagreement at the United Nations. To that I would say that it is up to the Canadian government to state its objective clearly, even though they are long range objectives, with the understanding that we may not get everything at once. But let us at least work toward these long range objectives.
Finally, some people might say that it might be wrong to give the United Nations more power to amend its charter. They state that by giving up some of our sovereignty, by putting some of our trust in an international body which could be dominated by other nations, we might be losing control of the right to determine our own destiny. To that I would say that with the present system we have not been able to guarantee our security.
In this century we have had two major wars, and since 1948 we have had major and minor conflicts. Certainly, there will be a risk involved in handing over more power to the United Nations, but I think the risk is minor as compared to the risk of another major war occurring under the present system. It is certain that risks are involved and that we might be taking a chance, but I say, let us take those risks because if we do not, we are in for even greater trouble.
Some people might say that these suggestions are too idealistic, that to think of a United Nations as it was created in 1945 is too idealistic and does not take into account the realities of the world situation. I say that if we feel we can maintain peace with the
United Nations Charter Reform. type of world structure that we have and the United Nations has, then we are being idealistic and not realistic. If we think we can really do something about international conflicts with the system of sovereign states that we have now, and the type of United Nations we have now, then we are being unrealistic. The only realistic proposal is to make the United Nations strong enough to maintain peace and prevent aggression.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I am very glad that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has put this private members' notice of motion on the order paper because I can think of no subject of more importance to the survival, not only of the United Nations and its possible contribution to world peace, but of the world itself when we come face to face with the realities of the international situation.
I think quite frankly that one of the problems we face in trying to come to grips with the situation which exists in the international sphere is to really ascertain what the facts are. I think it would not be an overstatement of the present international situation to describe it as one of almost total anarchy. Certainly, that is true when it comes to the co-operation of nations with nations. Those who speak glibly about international law, when it comes to the movement of powers and great powers, are speaking about something that really does not exist. They are speaking about those occasional agreements that arise when they are in the best interests of those who are party to them.
When one considers the facts as indicated by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the number of wars that not only have occurred since the end of world war II but are occurring even now, the degree to which nations seem incapable of solving some of the great human tragedies of our time, whether they be in Nigeria, Congo, Viet Nam, the Middle East or wherever, one realizes that we have little power at present at the United Nations to deal with these pressing human problems. Yet, one of the strange paradoxes of our times is that we can see a number of areas, internationally speaking, where there has been considerable agreement. We take it for granted when someone wishes to post a letter-provided it goes beyond the borders of this country, and that is where the question is, perhaps, these days-that it will normally arrive at its destination because we established some years ago now the International Postal Union which ensures the transport of
3380	COMMONS
United, Nations Charter Reform mail to almost every corner of the world. We take it for granted as well, when airlines set up schedules that move planes all over this world, that there is agreement as to the nature of landing facilities and landing procedures which are ultimately important to bring planes safely round the world day after day. International agreements, through agencies of the United Nations, have established a sensible program of international airline co-operation.
[DOT] (5.20 p.m.)
The same facts could be repeated again and again in relation to a number of spheres. The sphere that may be of most importance for the future resolution of the problem enunciated in this notice of motion concerns the degree to which business has become internationalized. Business and the expansion of trade usually precede, in most cases, the political arrangements that men devise. In my [DOT]opinion, if we are looking for some sign of hope toward the regularization of a form of law and order in the international community, it may come because of the very rapid development of the multinational or international corporation, and from the fact that those who trade and manufacture see little purpose to the confinement and restrictions that national boundaries have in past times created.
It is true that we are at the 25th anniversary of the United Nations, and I will not repeat the excellent elaboration that was given by the mover of the motion on the establishment of the Charter in 1945. Now, the desire seems to be that we should attempt to set right many of the weaknesses that have become more and more apparent during the 25 year operation of the United Nations. I think, quite frankly, that we will have to look squarely at the basic problems if we are to do that.
I am in total support of the proposals that the hon. member has advanced this afternoon, and I hope they will receive full consideration in the appropriate parliamentary committee. Perhaps the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Goyer) seconded the motion is an indication that this matter will be referred, at the conclusion of this afternoon's discussion, to the External Affairs Committee for much greater consideration than we are able to give it this afternoon. But my own fear, and it is an overriding fear, is that the motion does not go far enough.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
DEBATES	February 9, 1970
My overriding fear is that even if it were possible for the motion to pass, and for the government to act on all points raised in the motion, and-this would be the most remarkable of all-if it were possible for all these matters to be taken up and acted upon by the 131 members of the United Nations, even then we would find that the basic problem had not yet been dealt with. I refer to the question of jurisdiction. Quite frankly, it is the question of national sovereignty.
There are certain questions that each age has as its sacred cow, and it has been my experience, particularly in the last year or so, that no sacred cow looms larger for people in this country, and in most western countries, than that of national sovereignty. It is the sacred cow which we have willingly worshipped for many years-


Mr. Bigg:: For centuries.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: For centuries, as my colleague reminds me. Over the years, nations have imbued this question with an aura that has elevated it to the status of being a sacred cow. The sacred cow is now so inviolable that we willingly offer up human lives and human possessions in order to continue to pay service to it. If anyone needs the latest example of this kind of worship one has only to think of the ways in which nations willingly looked the other way when the people of Nigeria were caught up in a dreadful civil war that almost split their country asunder. These other nations, for some 30 months, could say self-righteously, "It is not our affair because we would never seek to question what goes on beyond the sovereign boundaries of another nation!" I wonder just how long we can carry on with that level of hypocrisy and human cynicism which says that our allegiance to a concept such as national sovereignty is more important than the lives of millions of people, men women and children. The young people of our society and our country no longer think that answer is good enough. They have demonstrated that by taking to the streets. I think, too, we will find that more and more people in the adult generation will say that answer is not good enough. They are asking for possible alternatives to be elaborated by our leaders and statesmen.
The alternative that has been painted until recently by a very small group of people is that we should consider some form of world federalism in which there would be a granting of powers by the nation states to a larger
February 9, 1970	COMMONS
world body. On a theoretical basis this looks attractive and sensible, and for those of us who live within a national federal system it seems eminently workable. But I think people have not examined the alternative closely enough to realize where the danger still lies. For me, the danger lies in the fact that we will still have nation states, presumably of their own free will granting and contributing certain powers to this international body. Such a world body would obviously be better than the present United Nations, but it would still have the weakness of regarding the nations as somehow exercising an ultimate sovereignty of their own.
I think we can never get away from a concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty exists because it relates to power and it relates to people. That is where I think we should start looking for our answer, by putting the power back in the hands of the people. I think if we are going to get beyond the present impasse, and I think it is important that we do-it is fundamental for the survival of this civilization-we will have to begin to be more creative about devising another kind of political framework through which people can invest and direct their power into an international forum, not just through national governments but directly in their own right.
If you wish, I would use the example of the Canadian federation. We meet here as members of a federal Parliament exercising jurisdiction on a number of questions of importance to the nation, not because ten provinces and two territories have created this Parliament and sent us here as individuals but because 21 million or 22 million people who call themselves Canadians in regular elections send their representatives to this forum to transact business on their behalf.
This is perhaps a kind of federalism which on a world plane might indeed get us beyond the impasse which we presently face. It is an impasse in three basic areas. It is an impasse in terms of jurisdic.ion, and jurisdiction I think will continue to hound us as long as there is in fact no consensus on the degree to which this body may act independently. The body's functioning will be further limited by the fact that its financing depends on the capricious behavior and interests of the nation states. We have seen and learned only too well how limited and how hamstrung this organization can be when its financing depends on that kind of response. Thirdly, the responsibility of this body can be exercised
DEBATES	3381
United Nations Charter Reform only as freely as the individual nation states, and particularly the most powerful ones, are willing to allow it to act.
I suppose that if the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has been considered an idealist, my suggestions will be considered to be those of a wild-eyed idealist. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for us to realize that unless we are willing to attack the root of the problem, the difficulties of establishing some form of international law and order, we are merely turning up the control on a pressure cooker that, when it finally explodes, will hurt everyone. It is clear that the pressure has been great enough over the past 25 years to hurt millions of people. They are being hurt at this moment.
[DOT] (5.30 p.m.)
It seems to me that Canada, one of the few countries that has been able to work effectively and successfully with the federal form of government, could make an unparallelled contribution in this field. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who claims to believe that the federal form of government is the form of government that ought to work best for an international community. I commend the hon. member for introducing this proposal relating to the reform of the charter of the United Nations. I say that this is just a threshold, an opening of the door for major change. This proposal would enable us to establish a form of government that is responsible to people and that would ensure the kind of peace, good government and security that the peoples of this modern world so desperately need.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset commend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for introducing this private members' notice of motion asking the government to take the initiative in strengthening the charter of the United Nations so that it may become a more effective international organization than it is today.
I hope the House will refer this notice of motion to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that it may be dealt with in an appropriate fashion. I also hope the subject matter of the notice of motion will come before the House in the form of legislation in the near future.
Like the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), I cannot help stressing the importance of the issue before us. I often
February 9, 1970

United Nations Charter Reform wish hon. members of the House would consider this matter as one of top priority and would begin to show much more concern about where the world is going as a community and what will happen to us all in the next 15 or 20 years. The hon. member for Egmont has said some of the things I wanted to say about our reasons for creating a world organization with real power and a great deal of sovereignty.
As automation and technology develop, we are transformed increasingly into a global village. Today national boundaries are not as important as they were five or ten years ago. When you consider economic transactions, modern communications, travel and the many things that people all over the world have in common, you realize that the world is becoming smaller. That is one reason for our establishing a world community which will have more power than the UN has at present, and some measure of sovereignty. We see many tragedies in the world: this is an additional reason for strengthening the United Nations charter and moving in the direction of giving the UN more power.
Today the world lives under the balance of terror. The other day President Nixon announced that additional billions of dollars are to be allocated for the development of Safeguard Anti-ballistic missiles. This, in turn, will encourage the U.S.S.R. and other countries to spend more money on the development of weapons. Thus, stockpiles of weapons keep escalating; the proliferation of nuclear weapons is encouraged, and ultimately, acts of aggression are encouraged. We have seen examples of international violence. War is going on in Viet Nam and in the Sudan. A war has just finished in Nigeria. War is raging in the Middle East. One year ago last fall we witnessed the tragic invasion of Czechoslovakia. Since all indications are that the foreign policies of the United States, the Soviet Union and other countries will continue as at present, there is a clear indication that troubles of this kind will become more frequent.
These are not the only reasons for strengthening the United Nations and moving toward a world organization that has more power than at present. In the world we see many problems. There are problems of pollution, which must be dealt with on an international basis-water, air and foods are polluted. As a matter of fact, about an hour ago I read a newspaper article saying that in the opinion of a zoologist human beings may not have

more than 20 or 25 years to live on this planet unless they eliminate their pollution. We are polluting our atmosphere, our soil and our rivers. These are all matters which pay no attention to international boundaries. Clearly, in matters of pollution international boundaries are not important.
We must also begin thinking of a strengthened international organization for other reasons. We are witnessing the problem of the population explosion. One sees, especially in the developing countries, that overpopulation is a real threat; we have a problem in feeding people who are coming into our world. We also have poverty on a tremendous international scale. Two-thirds of the world's people are either starving or living in abject poverty. These people will become desperate, and when they do we shall have no guarantee of peace in the world. When a man is hungry he thinks of revolution, and when many people manifest similar sentiments in a nation you have no guarantee of peace or security anywhere in the world.
I have cited some reasons to support my contention that the world community should be strengthened. But, Mr. Speaker, we must also start looking at solutions of the many problems facing us in the world. As has been said in the House, our society has placed men on the moon and transplanted hearts; doctors are now talking about transplanting brains. I wish we could do as good a job in reforming our society and solving some of the economic problems facing us in Canada and the peoples of the world.
As I said, we must begin as soon as possible to build a world organization which will have some power and sovereignty. There must be a world federation of some kind. No one can stand here and spell out in detail what kind of world federation ought to be introduced in the future, but we must all begin by trying to give the world organization power-power to limit the arms race. The world organization must have more power for peace keeping and for peaceful intervention in the many wars now going on, we must show that the international community is truly concerned. The international community must have more power to tackle problems of poverty and pollution which transgress national boundaries.
Many might say, "But how is this to be done?" I would be the first to admit that we are not talking about a simple proposition. We are talking about a new order in the world community-and it must be introduced. Canada is a highly respected middle power
February 9, 1970	COMMONS
and can do much to gather support for this idea. We must avoid in future repeating what we all did or did not do in the Nigeria-Biafra incident. The international community did not want to become involved in the conflict because of the sacred cow of sovereignty to which the bon. member for Egmont referred. The international community thought, "This has nothing to do with us" even though it witnessed a world tragedy on an enormous scale. That showed the weakness of the UN and why we must reform it as quickly as possible. I submit that Canada as a well-respected nation can lead the way toward a more viable and powerful world community.
If we are to achieve this objective, as a first step I suggest we abandon the arms race and opt out of regional military pacts such as NATO and NORAD. We should pursue an independent foreign policy so that Canada may wield more influence among the nations of the world, particularly among the third world, with a view to establishing a responsible world community. Also, I submit we ought to recognize mainland China as soon as possible and make sure that country is seated on the Security Council of the United Nations. How can one begin talking about a world community when the country containing a quarter of the world's population remains outside the world organization? It is foolish to think about a world organization which does not have mainland China among its membership as well as every other country which is not in the United Nations.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This will take time. As long as we keep hesitating and procrastinating, nothing will be done. If we keep hedging, the United Nations will gradually become weaker and weaker until, like the League of Nations, it will become completely ineffective and will disappear. This will not happen quickly. If we look at history we will see that it took a long time for the nation state to evolve and develop into what we have today. If we go back, we will see that at the beginning there were tribal units. These gradually formed city states and kingdoms. It took a long time before the nation state evolved out of kingdoms. Today we must move into a new era with an international organization or some type of world federation.
I wish to once again state why we should refer this motion to the committee. Hopefully, the committee will carry out some constructive work on this resolution, and as much of it as possible should be included in legislation. I
DEBATES	3383
United Nations Charter Reform wish the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who put this motion on the Order Paper, had talked this way when a number of us were trying to get certain aspects of the Nigerian problem discussed at the United Nations. This was one problem we all faced. I was disappointed that some members, particularly the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, did not support our action in trying to get part of the Nigerian problem discussed at the United Nations. If my information is correct, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is chairman of the Liberal Party caucus on external affairs and defence. I wish him well in trying to sell these ideas to some of his colleagues. If my experience in this House has taught me anything, he will need a bit of luck.
Canada is respected all over the world. I think most people agree, including the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who spent some time at the United Nations, that we are respected more than any other country, certainly more than the United States, the Soviet Union or any of the major powers. Because of this we can lead the way in many matters. This is only one of the fields in which we must lead the way in the near future. I think it is vital to the very existence, not only of Canada and our society but of the world community.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join other members of the House in congratulating the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for introducing this motion. It is to his credit that it is a private member's motion. I do not think it should be ignored on that account. It is a very important motion.
The United Nations was an experiment in world federalism. No matter what it is called, it is a re-birth of the League of Nations. Unfortunately, in 1945 we repeated the same error we made in the League of Nations. I say "we" because Canada was one of the originators of the idea of the United Nations. Having written nine-tenths of the charter in very acceptable form, we left out a very important power-the power to enforce peace.
Several members have pointed out that the human being is a very noble creature. He is willing to organize himself, sacrifice himself and he will listen to any amount of propaganda, some of which is acceptable depending from what source it is heard. He may herd millions of people to their death. It is very difficult to get a small percentage of people
February 9, 1970

United Nations Charter Reform willing to enforce peace. Enforcing peace seems incompatible, but I do not think it is necessarily incompatible; it has the same source and interest.
We must have power. Power can be used for good as well as for evil. The human family has the very bad habit of organizing itself behind its weapons, getting excited and even noble about the wrong causes. A great many people feel it is impossible to edge forward in the opposite direction. I am not one of those people who believe it is impossible, but 1 do think it is difficult.
When I was a lad I was by a dock in Vancouver when I saw two diminutive Japanese sailors doing something that I thought was extremely foolish. They each had a pole in their hand and they were pushing the Empress of Japan, an 18,000-ton ship. I was a prairie boy and I did not know much about the sea. I still do not know too much about it. I was impressed by the fact that these two young men were wasting their time. They were pushing the Empress of Japan with two poles not more than three inches in diameter.
I did not have anything else to do in those days, so I sat and watched. After a few minutes the Empress of Japan moved out from the dock. It is true that it moved slowly, but with the persistent efforts of two diminutive Asiatics the Empress of Japan moved out from the dock. The other gentlemen on the deck threw down some rope objects shaped like large doughnuts, which were put between the ship and the dock. Damage to the Empress of Japan was prevented by two small men who persisted and performed what to me looked like an impossible task.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, backed by myself and other members who have spoken, can be referred to as diminutive westerners pushing the people of Canada, perhaps the whole world, a few inches closer to sanity. This may launch a new era in peaceful negotiations around the world. I certainly hope it does. Most of my life has been involved in practical things, so I want to make a practical suggestion. I am not cynical. I suggest this is a good place in which to launch a national campaign against vindictiveness. I do not know what we can do in the case of Red China or Russia, or what we can do to introduce the subject more forcefully to our rich and powerful neighbour to the south-but we can do something here.
If we can get Canadians really interested in the subject, I think something can be done. Canada has already made a considerable con-

tribution to world affairs. Our former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, was and still is highly respected in international circles. He is not always appreciated as much at home as he is abroad, but nevertheless he has made a considerable contribution to this subject. I am sure that he made efforts to give the United Nations teeth at the time that organization was formed.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is that it will cost money. We must be willing to spend a little more money on the affairs of this world. I am glad to know the hon. member who introduced this subject is a practical man. He knows the United Nations must be financed. We are a very rich nation. In the past we have sometimes been willing to pay a great deal more than our share, and we must continue to do so in the future. We not only have the resources but we know what the problem is, or certainly a few of us do. So it is our job to sell this idea to the Canadian people in every way possible.
[DOT] (5.50 p.m.)
I think time is running out. I am not a Jeremiah, but I believe that in this fast-moving age of ours we do not have 20 or 30 years in which to put this policy into operation. If this boat is to be pushed out, we had better get going in the two or three years we have. It must be done. As to China and Russia, we should not worry about that problem; I am sure there are millions of people in China and Russia who do not want war. This is true of the United States and it is certainly true of Canada. We must be realistic. While we are preparing our attitudes and speeches in the United Nations, we ought to be frank with these people and tell them their faults as we see them, as gently and as firmly as we can. We must remind Red China that if they expect co-operation from us-and sometimes the mouse can help the lion-they must be willing to join the rest of the human race; they cannot have their own way 100 per cent of the time.
It cannot be taken for granted that because Canada is small in terms of population we shall always be willing to go along with the policy adopted by other nations, whether the United States or the communistic states. On our part, because of our central location we are sometimes tempted to think we are as important or as powerful as other nations I have mentioned simply because we occupy such a big space on the map. Sometimes the communist countries forget that Canada, too,
February 9, 1970

has an important part to play and that international communism is perhaps not the answer to all the world's ills.
I think some of the policies followed by the United States have not been given full credit. For instance, the Marshall Plan, stripped of its political aspects, and no doubt there were a few, was one of the most generous acts of mankind in the history of this planet. Unless sovereign states are willing to see another side of the question and accept this type of overture, it will be difficult to reach the final stage which Tennyson foresaw 120 years ago when he said he looked forward to the day when we furled the battle flags in the confederation of the world.
1 am not a world federalist in any formal sense, but I do think every nation should be prepared to give up some of its sovereignty. I agree with my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island when he said this sacred cow must be stripped of its garland. Let us not kill the cow, because we need milk; but I am against the sacred cow. If by taking a lead through giving up a small portion of her sovereignty Canada could set an example to smaller nations on the one hand, and to larger nations on the other, it would show we were willing to give up a chest-thumping approach in the broader interests of mankind. I think the motion put forward today might well be a milestone in the progress of mankind.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, technically, I supported the motion because it derived from a much valid concept and because I wanted to give the House the opportunity of discussing it, through the initiative of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), although I have serious reservations about the feasibility of what this motion proposes.
Naturally, I would need more than two minutes, the time left before the dinner recess, to explain those reservations. However, I can say that Canada made it a point of honour, at the last session of the UN, to wage a public fight, which was started by the minister when he visited New York last September, in order to get the Organization to work more efficiently.
Canada took three steps during the last session. In the first place, it advocated improvement in research. It is a known fact that the UN is flooded with all kinds of
Expropriation
reports, which curtails its effectiveness. In addition, as for conferences and meetings, the Secretariat organized in 1960 for the Assembly in New York and in Geneva; 2,070 meetings; in 1967, there were 5,400 meetings that is twice as many, and in 1969, 6,400. It is obvious that at the rate those people meet to discuss various problems, it is impossible for them to be efficient.
In connection with methods and procedures, we have noted, for example, that assignments are badly distributed; for example, the special committee on policy met 46 times during the last session, shile the committee on social policy met 93 times. The question of apartheid was raised in three committees. We suggested the establishment of a three-member committee to discuss work organization in the United Nations, the efficiency of the existing committees, the procedure and the making up of the agenda, etc.
Those three resolutions were passed by the General Assembly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Brewin) moved:
That Bill C-136, an act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by adding at the end of subsection (1) of section 23 thereof the following:
"so that each owner shall receive full and fair compensation for the expropriation".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I made the remark this afternoon when we were debating motion No. 2 that there is such a thing as getting
[Stage Direction]
February 9, 1976
Expropriation
beyond one's depth. If I did not drown that time, hon. members can be hopeful that I might this time or next time.
In the absence of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I am privileged to put forward this amendment which Your Honour has read to the House. I believe it was understood that motions Nos. 8 and 9 would be considered together. At any rate, as far as I am concerned No. 9 is consequential upon No. 8, and therefore on this occasion I shall make only the one speech.
As I understand it, the change sought by this amendment submitted by the hon. member for Greenwood was discussed at some length in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I gather that under the old system, the amount to be paid in cases of expropriation was determined by the court on its own initiative in light of its own judgment. On the other hand, the aim of the bill now before us is to change this practice and to provide statutory rules which will determine the amount of compensation.
I take it, having read the record of the committee proceedings, that there is general approval for this change. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for the introduction of this legislation. I think I am being fair to my colleague from Greenwood when I say that although he preferred not to make the change at all, he was prepared to accept statutory rules for the fixing of compensation, provided there was a bit of leeway afforded the court; that there was a provision that would make it possible for the court to exercise its own judgment in cases that did not seem to be covered in full by the rules set out in the statute.
The intent of my hon. friend's amendment is pretty well stated in the words that he would like added to subsection 1 of section 23, namely, "so that each owner shall receive full and fair compensation for the expropriation". In other words, the proposal that my hon. friend makes is along these lines: Let there be rules in the statute, and let the court follow those rules. But if there are cases where it is clear to the court that full and fair compensation has not been provided, then the court should have the authority and the jurisdiction to see that fair compensation is provided.
Perhaps I might take a moment to read a few words from the committee record. At pages 62 and 63 of issue No. 5 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the hon. member for Greenwood said this:

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am fearful that the infinite complexity of property owning and types of property and so on will mean that the endeavour under clause 24 to spell out in detail the exact rules to be applied in every case may mean that you have a rigidity that will prevent people from receiving a full and fair compensation. This would still leave these rules to be applied prima facie as to how the expropriation would be carried out. But if some case arose in which the rules clearly did not give full and fair compensation because of some type of property that did not fit into this same concept of market value or because of some reasons the market was not adequate or these other rules did not apply, in that case the court would be unable to do justice. In other words it would leave the thing at large rather than making this a rigid set of rules.
There is quite a bit more that I could read. In fact, I could read from both sides of the argument. However, I think those few sentences from the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood contain the main argument for this amendment to clause 23, which motion I am happy to support.
If I may recapitulate, we accept the proposition that there should be written into the expropriation law statutory provisions and rules to be followed. It does seem that in modern times, with all their complexities, there are cases where there should be latitude for the court. My friend the hon. member for Greenwood says this latitude should be granted so that the court can ensure there will be full and fair compensation in every case.
I hope I have not done any injustice to the point the hon. member for Greenwood sought to make. It seems to me it has merit. It accepts what the government proposes in this bill but it provides a bit of latitude to ensure justice in every case. Therefore, on behalf of the hon. member for Greenwood I not only present but support this amendment.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has again been fair in presenting the amendment of his colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). One of the main purposes of this bill is to clarify the present vague rules of compensation paid to owners of expropriated property or those with an interest in the expropriated property, as contained in judicial decisions. Frankly, these decisions are sometimes hard to research and apply. It was our intent to convert these vague rules, as currently applied by the courts, into rules of statutory precision. These rules are set
February 9, 1970



forth with that precision in clause 24 of the bill.
The new law will provide for a comprehensive code in determining the compensation that is payable to owners of expropriated property. In general, the minimum or base value of the amount paid to owners of property expropriated by the federal government will be the market value of the property at the time of its taking by the federal government. Provision is made in clause 24, which is related to clause 23, to compensate for any loss or cost incidental to the disturbance faced by the expropriated owner, including moving to other premises and any element of special economic advantage related to the operation of the property.
Special rules are also provided to compensate owners of specially designed buildings such as schools, hospitals or religious institutions for which there is no general market value because there is no general demand for the property. Also, the statutory rules set forth in clause 24 relate to the value that is to be paid to the holders of secured interest in mortgages, and so on, in the property.
The statutory rules in clause 24 set forth the new principles of compensation the principle of a home for a home, and the right under the new law of an expropriated person to claim as compensation the cost of relocating his residence in reasonably equivalent premises if the compensation otherwise payable to him, represented by the market value, is not sufficient to establish himself in premises equal to those which have been expropriated. 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 the investment he may have in the leased premises, and so on, including the nature of the business carried on by him on the premises, all are taken into consideration in determining the compensation payable to him.
All this illustrates that clause 24, to which clause 23 relates, sets forth a statutory code of compensation. The main objection the government has to the amendment introduced both at the committee stage, and rejected there, and now by the hon. member for Greenwood through the courtesy of his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that it attempts to provide an overriding provision to the effect that each owner shall receive full and fair compensation, so that the amount computed by the application of the rules will, in effect, be the minimum only.
Expropriation
It is the intention of the bill that the rules set forth in statutory form to provide full and fair compensation be of such a nature that the owners and the people of Canada, through the Crown, can evaluate with some measure of certainty what the ground rules are. I submit to Your Honour that the rules set forth in clause 24 provide for all appropriate compensable economic loss flowing from the taking of the property, and frankly we do not see the necessity for such an amendment.
My main objection to the proposal is that it would relegate, in effect, to a secondary position the statutory basis or ground rules for compensation set forth in clause 24, leaving the primary principle of compensation to judicial interpretation of whatever the words "full and fair compensation" mean. That would leave the door open, in my opinion, to vague interpretations of such things as "interest to the owner", and so on, which currently rely upon the uncertainty of judicial decisions.
For these reasons we feel that the clauses relating to compensation are fair and are meant to be statutory guidelines for the courts. Because in fact we feel that they do compensate in a full and fair way the owner of any interest expropriated by the federal government, we would recommend as we did at the committee, and as the committee accepted, the rejection of this judicial overriding of statutory provisions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make one point in an effort to expedite the matter. If you look at amendments 8, 9, 10 and 11 you will see they all relate to clause 24 dealing with rates of compensation. I was wondering whether they could all be packaged together. My amendment asks for the whole thing to be abolished. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) makes certain changes. I submit the whole argument could be dealt with in a package, and I make the suggestion to save time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the hon. member for Greenwood used a rapier instead of a hammer, and he may prefer to have his particular motion dealt with separately.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They could be voted on separately, but they are one and the same thing. I do not mind if the minister wants to extend the debate.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I am not sure where it would leave us, but there is a proposal put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that for the purposes of debate the subject matter of motions 8, 9, 10 and 11 be dealt with now. I am prepared to put that proposal to the House, if there is agreement. I see that the minis ier agrees. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on a point of order in this connection?


Stanley Howard Knowles: certainly would be willing to have the debate range over all four amendments. In one sense I should like that, because I would rather not have to make a decision at this stage as to whether we should force a vote on this point. If we could have the discussion on all four, we could more easily reach a decision as to whether we want a recorded vote on each of them. In other words, we could suspend the debate on this amendment, take the next one and move on.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: In light of the discussion, I think we might allow the debate to cover the subject matter of motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. I shall put the four questions when debate has come to an end and I can see whether there is a desire to have a roll call vote on each one. Is that agreeable?


Stanley Howard Knowles: With one qualification, Mr. Speaker. If the debate is to range over all four amendments, I hope I can get the floor again on amendment No. 10.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will therefore discuss motion No. 9 in the name of Mr. Brewin, as follows:
That Bill C-136, An Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out the word "shall" in section 24(1), line 33, page 19 of the bill and substituting therefor the word "may" and adding thereto the words "without restricting the generality of the provisions of section 23 (1) hereof".
Motion No. 10 in the name of Mr. Brewin, as follows:
That Bill C-136, An Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out of section 24, subsection 9(c), the following words at the end thereof: "or other public purpose for which the interest was expropriated".
Then motion No. 11 in the name of Mr. Woolliams, as follows:
That Bill C-136, An Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by deleting subclause 9 of clause 24.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling, to use the minister's words I can discuss in one big sweep amendments on which I would have had to make several speeches. All motions 8, 9 and 10 do is make certain changes in clause 24(9). Basically what we are determining in this debate is how we will arrive at the value of appropriated interests and how much compensation should be paid. Although I agree with the hon. member who moved motion No. 10, I would rather we had only part of it.
I should like to make a few remarks in respect of clause 24(9) which I have asked be deleted. The other motions would merely amend certain parts. I suggest the deletion of clause 24(9) of the bill. This does not leave a vacuum, because the decision here is whether the amount of compensation is to be that determined by the common law rules, or by the complex, rigid, regulatory, statutory formula which now is subject to many interpretations and judicial and legal disagreement.
Several witnesses discussed this particular matter, including an appraiser and Mr. Weir of the Canadian Bar. Mr. Weir said, in respect of some of these parts, that they are hard to swallow. His main point is, do we want in this new appropriation bill a rigid formula, or do we want a more flexible rule under the common law which is the case law of Canada? Mr. Weir did not want to jump on either side because he could see the minister had taken a hard position and that we also had taken a hard position. Therefore, he said that it depends on whether we accept a more flexible rule in respect of compensation, which is the common law, or whether we want a rigid formula. Several lawyers who read papers before the Canadian Bar Association and witnesses who appeared before the standing committee took different views on the interpretation of subclause 9(a), (b), (c) and (d) and what it meant.
As I say the rules governing the amount of compensation to be paid a claimant, a land owner or one with interest in land, have evolved over a long period of time. I may find myself a little on the opposite side of the argument I put toward this afternoon. The Exchequer Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, through much of the case law, have set out pretty definite rules that are well understood by the legal profession engaged in this kind of specialty.
Today law is very complex, just as is medicine and dentistry. It will not be very long before lawyers will no longer be known as
February 9, 1970

barristers and solicitors but as men and women in a specialized field. There will be specialists in fields of law just as in the Department of Justice today there are lawyers who carry out only one phase of legal work. Lawyers will become specialists in tax law, in expropriation cases, in criminal law, in civil litigation or in estates. They will probably take the same general course and will then specialize in the same way doctors specialize. This is coming. It is probably overdue.
The object of any formula for expropriation, whether it is based on the common law rules-stare decisis-or on statutory regulation, should take into consideration two simple factors. One is the market value of the land, the value to the taker and not the owner. The second is the value of the present use plus any consequential loss arising from the disturbance of that use.
Having said that, let us see what clause 24(9) will do. First of all, it abolishes many of the common law rules. It would not compensate for any source of material used as part of the property expropriated. For example, if A owned a piece of land which was expropriated for the Trans-Canada Highway and was full of the resource gravel, and B owned land used for the highway in the adjacent area without the resource gravel, both would receive basically the same compensation because by clause 24(9)(a) any anticipated or actual use by the Crown of the land at any time after the expropriation shall not be considered in the valuation. So immediately you start to set up hard rules without flexibility, you get discrimination.
In the example I gave of A and B owning a piece of land taken for the Trans-Canada Highway, both would receive the same value under the hard and rigid formula of the minister even though the land of A contained gravel used on the highway. This is discrimination. I will please one gentleman who is not here at the moment by referring to a case about which he knows quite a bit. Our witness from the Canadian Bar Association said that this formula would be pretty difficult to swallow. When the minister quoted Mr. Weir, I had difficulty following him because he drew inferences from what Mr. Weir said in reference to the Exchequer Court and the civil courts, while the note I have is that Mr. Weir said it would be almost impossible to swallow. If the minister accepts Mr. Weir's evidence on one phase of the argument, I hope he accepts his evidence on the amend-
Expropriation
ment so far as the formula for measuring compensation is concerned.
The common law is a flexible judicial system. All lawyers who have some appreciation of the common law of our country realize that one can do a good deal of research in case law but never find two cases which are identical. In preparing any point of law it is very difficult to say other than that the cases appear to be the same. The beauty of the common law is that it is flexible enough in respect of the decisions one would use. This would give the judges of the Exchequer Court, who the minister has now endorsed with great affection, more flexibility. Each case would stand on its own and we would get away from the discrimination I mentioned in respect of the example of highway property. I that case the specialists on behalf of the state, because they worked for the state for quite a while felt they would be able to control the Bench.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
When you read the cases you see that the judges have been pretty flexible and fair to the citizens. I will deal with the Fraser case in a few moments. But what will the minister be doing if he takes to heart what has been recommended to him? He will say, "We do not trust these flexible judges any longer. I like the Exchequer Court, but I want to tell them what to do; therefore, I will give them a code and make it so hard and fast that there will be no flexibility". This is the new approach of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Ritchie:: It is not very liberal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right, but sometimes it has compensations. What does the common law actually say? The test has been laid down in many cases which I will mention in passing. I will deal with some of the things said in Irving Oil v. The King, Diggon-Hibben v. The King, and Woods Manufacturing Company v. The King. In dealing with the concept of the value to the owner as developed before the Supreme Court of Canada, the rules laid down were quite simple. I do not think they need to be codified. Lawyers have been dealing with these cases for a long time. The following is from a case before the Supreme Court:
What would the claimant, as a prudent man, at the moment of expropriation (he then being deemed as without title but all else remaining the same) pay for the property rather than be ejected from it? Any readiness to pay anything above the value as waste land can only come from the fact that a causeway is to be built.

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
Added to these rules were refined decisions which have all been subject to further interpretation. We had the case of Vezina v. the Queen (1889, 17 SCR), which deals with the value of the land at the date of the expropriation-the value to the owner, not the taker. The Supreme Court of Canada had held that where land is taken by a railway company for the purpose of using the gravel thereon as ballast, the owner is only entitled to compensation for the land so taken as farmland, where there is no market for the gravel. This case was treated as overruled by the court in Fraser v. The Queen on the ground that the judgment was inconsistent with the subsequent judgment known as the Indian case, which was decided upon previously by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain.
In the Fraser case, with Judson, J. dissenting, the court awarded over $360,000, which was $300,000 more than the Exchequer Court had awarded, for the 12.8 acres expropriated out of Porcupine Hill on the ground of its special adaptability as a source of rock for the causeway across Canso Strait, for which purpose the federal government expropriated the acreage. What really happened there? The court supplied flexibility. They may have gone a little far. They said that if you have two pieces of land, land A and land B, and the material necessary for the project was in land A and there was none in land B, the owner of land A was entitled to more compensation. Under the code as set out in clause 24 (9)-and this is really very technical-this has been done away with. They are all treated equally, no matter what is under the land or on it; all the land is treated as waste land.
So I say that the common law is far more flexible. To my mind it is more fair to the owner who lost his land, and it is also more fair to the taxpayer because a reasonable market value is paid at the time of taking. Of course, everybody agrees that the owner is not entitled to have the price enhanced because the taker wishes to buy the land for a certain project. But if that land is unique in that it has material necessary for a project, why should not the owner of that land be compensated for what he has either on the soil or underneath it? Surely that is a reasonable proposition.
Mr. Justice Ritchie of the Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with the rules in Cedar Rapids v. Lacoste, namely, the imaginary market which would have ruled had the land been exposed for sale before any undertakers
[Mr. Woolliams.l
had secured the powers which made the undertaking as a whole a realized possibility, distinguished the Fraser case on the facts, stating that the federal government always had these powers and was not an undertaker who had to secure such powers. Let me shorten this to say that in other words we have to consider the imaginary market value of that land prior to the takeover, and we have to set up an imaginary purchaser at that time. Lands are valued in that fashion.
One of the most customary methods of appraising land is to go into a community where land has been taken or expropriated for a public purpose, or according to the federal statutes for use for a public purpose, and find out at the time of the taking what lands of a similar kind, under similar circumstances would have sold for. In taking a group of sales at that time, you come up with certain percentage per acre, and that is the value put on the land. That is the common law principle. To me this seems far better than setting down hard and fast rules, the interpretation of which every lawyer today disagrees with. None of the lawyers at the Canadian Bar Association meeting agreed with this meaning. I imagine that in the next five years lawyers will have a field day putting an interpretation on the meaning of the code.
That is why I would like to see the proposal abolished. It will not hurt the act. The act has many good parts in it, and the minister should be congratulated for bringing it in. He should reconsider his position on the formula for the expropriation proceedings, and the fact that the common law rules, in setting the quantum of compensation, were far better than a code which would be subject to appeals back and forth from decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which decisions will be refined and distinguished in other cases for the next ten years. For almost 100 years now we have been codifying rules of common law because of the case law. Therefore, why should we set down a whole set of new codes and terms which as I have proven, will discriminate against some people under similar circumstances?
To return to Mr. Justice Ritchie, I quote him as follows:
The value must be tested In relation to the market which would have ruled had the land been exposed for sale before the powers of expropriation had been exercised.
That is the general rule which is known by all lawyers, all appraisers, and by laymen as
February 9, 1970

well. They ask: What would my land have sold for if the government had not come along and taken it from me?
Mr. Justice Ritchie states that this same view was expressed in Agnew The Minister of Highways, which is an Ontario case. The same common law rule was applied there, that where there is material under the soil, the owner is en itled to be paid for it. In other words, the value is the true value at the time of taking, plus any future potential value that the land might have.
However, this does not affect the authority of the judgment in the Indian case as to the duty of the arbitrator previously referred to, even where the only possible purchaser of the land's potentiality is the expropriating authority. The Indian case did throw a monkey-wrench into the common law principle because there was a tendency in the Canadian law not to apply the principle of future potential. Let me explain what I mean by that. If, for example, a group of men owned land near a city, their surveyors subdivided that land for a new suburban area, and the land was required for a freeway, the Canadian law did not go as far as the decision in the Indian case. But it finally did say that you were to pay for the true value of the land on its ordinary value plus its future potential, and because you had committed an overt act in planning a townsite you received the true value of the land plus something for the plans you had made because for a number of years you may have had that investment in mind knowing that eventually the city would spread to there. You paid fees for the engineers, but finally the project was lost to you because the government needed the land for another purpose. Proper, flexibles rules would take into consideration compensation for that kind of land potential.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The Indian case goes a little further. Lord Romer said that even if the piece of land was such that the only use it could have was the one the government was going to put it to, you were s'ill entitled to be paid for it. That is the effect of the Fraser case. This area had rock, and the rock was needed to build the causeway. Even though they were the only purchasers who needed rock, they were obliged to pay for it. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the judicial committee's decision in that case.
I am pointing out how flexible is the common law. Under the new formula the
Expropriation
Fraser case would not have happened. They have abolished the Indian case. They have discriminated against many owners of land. I think there is something wrong when people go out and buy land for speculation, knowing that the government is interested in it. The federal government, working with provincial governments and municipalities, could have cut the price of housing had it stopped that kind of speculation investment, just as Saskatoon did a long time ago.
The situation is different where a person held land for a number of years and had bought it without any knowledge that the city would spread out. A former minister did that in the city of Calgary and it worked out fairly well. Surely such a person is entitled to be paid for that investment? That is what the common law rules accomplish. The statutory rules are almost impossible to understand, each one has to be interpreted separately and no one really knows the true situation. I am sure the minister would not claim to know what each of these subclauses means.
The simple rule is: What would a willing purchaser be prepared to pay the owner of the land at the time of expropriation, plus its future potential? That is the common law rule, and I repeat it: What would a willing purchaser be prepared to pay the owner of the land at the time of expropriation, plus its future potential? By this code the government is trying to plug all these loopholes, and some lawyers think it is opening the door and making things more difficult.
The case law has gone so far as to say that "willing purchaser" could be interpreted to mean the taker. This afternoon I dealt with the Lake Louise case. There is one more comment I would say about it. As a great lawyer in Toronto said to me, it is rather shocking that the government by its regulations can sterilize a development that the owners wanted to undertake and had planned to undertake, and can then come along and do exactly what the owners wanted to do.
In the Lake Louise case the owners planned a townsite. They had surveys done and maps made. Then the government said it was not going to allow them to build a townsite. But what is the government going to do? This is why common law is very important. It has now leased the site to Imperial Oil for multimillion dollar development. It seems to me that under this codified law, to develop the parks in western Canada you must now belong to big business like Imperial Oil, Canadian Power, and Sunshine. The little

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
man who was promised that if he gave up some of his rights, some of his leases, he would get the first chance to run a store or a motel, has been forgotten. That promise has gone down the drain.
Give me the common law with a little flexibility. Give me the right to see that these questions are interpreted by the courts. Despite all his feeling for the Bench, the minister must have been frightened this afternoon. Apparently he does not trust the Bench to do its job, because he is setting down the rules on how it will do its job.
All this reminds me of the story of Abraham Lincoln who one morning was on one side of a case and won it. In the afternoon he was on the opposite side of a similar case, and the judge reminded him about his appearance in the morning. Lincoln replied, "This morning I thought I was right, but this afternoon I know I am right." That explains the argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). It will be interesting to hear what he has to say tonight, because he is going to be on the other side of the fence.
In order to be helpful, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that all the arguments on amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 be made at the same time in one sweep, which would save my having to speak again. In conclusion, I trust the common law. I trust the independent judiciary of Canada. The law is very clear, simple and straightforward on measuring compensation for land. Why do we need a lengthy code when the common law has served its purpose and the judges, with their training and knowledge, are well equipped to interpret that law which has over a period of time served the average man well?


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to have all the discussion on these four motions before the questions were put on each of them. I have nothing more to say on No. 8, but I have something to say on Nos. 9 and 10.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we now proceed to discuss motion No. 9, and that the question be put later on the four motions, Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now hear debate on motion No. 9.
[Mr. Woolliams.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the debate you will hear from this seat on motion No. 9 will be very brief because it is obvious that No. 9 is an amendment consequential to No. 8 and it would be necessary only if the House were intelligent enough to support motion No. 8. I should like to say that what we seek in motions Nos. 8 and 9 is not to set aside the proposition that there shall be rules in the legislation, as I think the minister intimated, but rather to provide that in special cases the court would still be in a position to exercise its judgment to make sure that there is full and fair compensation. That is why we have put forward motions No. 8 and 9. As I say, No. 9 is consequential to motion No. 8. I hope both of them will be supported.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: This completes discussion on motion No. 9. Motion No. 10 is now deemed to be before the House for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move motion No. 10 on behalf of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). It is one of several dealing with clause 9 of the bill and relates to a specific point. Here I think I can do two things, namely, keep my remarks brief and make the matter clear, by referring to what the hon. member for Greenwood said about this proposed motion when the matter was discussed in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am looking at pages 80 and 81 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 5 of that committee. The hon. member for Greenwood is reported as having said this:
I would like to ask the minister, under paragraph (e), whether he does not think that is extraordinarily broad, that is, any knowledge or expectation, prior to the expropriation, of the public work-I can see that-or other public purpose for which the interest was expropriated. In a dynamic economy such as you have around a big city, some of the public purposes like expressways and things like that are known for 10 or 15 years before, and this knowledge is bound to have some impact upon all the market prices in that area.
It seems to me that you have drawn up something here that is so wide as to be impractical of application and very unjust as far as the actual person expropriated is concerned.
I can see where knowledge of the actual public work and where it is actually going should not be allowed to enhance the value of the thing, but expectation of the public purpose for which the interest is expropriated is a very vague phrase. The minister said that the purpose of these rules is to give certainty and to have a clear measuring stick. I suggest to you that the litigation and the
February 9, 1970

argumentation about a phrase as vague, as broad and as extensive as that will be never ending and this is an example of the folly, in my judgment, of trying to pin down everything in this way.
I was interested in reading what followed. The minister took part in the discussion, as did the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), and others. I do not intend to speak for them, but there seemed to be a fair amount of support for the position put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood, namely, that the language of clause 24(9)(c) is a little too broad. That is why the hon. member's amendment proposes that the last few words of this subparagraph be deleted. I notice, from reading the Minutes of Proceedings of the committee, that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) proposed that the whole of clause 9 be struck out; but that is another amendment, and I think it goes too far. So, on the basis of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood, who said that in a modern society this kind of language is too broad, I present this motion to the House in the hon. member's name.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I, to save the time of the House, reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about amendment No. 10 and, immediately after, reply to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) about amendment No. 11.
This is a new proposal put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). It was not a proposal that reached the committee in concrete form in the form of an amendment, although he referred to the point in committee. We thought about it a good deal, but I am afraid we cannot agree to it because clause 3 of the bill authorizes the expropriation of land for public works or other purposes. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood were accepted, clause 24(9)(c) would apply where the expropriation was for a public work but not where it was for a public purpose other than a public work. In other words, if the purpose of the expropriation were for a greenbelt or something like that, it would not be for a public work but would be for a public purpose.
Undoubtedly some will suggest, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tonight, that clause 24(9)(c) is too broad in its wording and in some cases it will deprive an owner of compensation because of the increase in value of his property by virtue of
Expropriation
there being contemplation on the part of some people of the expropriation. I have no doubt, however, that the courts and indeed the Crown will apply this provision only in those circumstances where the problem it is intended to remedy actually exists. There may be difficulty in distinguishing a purpose that is a public work and a purpose that is not a public work, because the expropriation itself may be for recreational purposes, planning purposes or purposes that are not reflected merely in the erection of a building or other material construction. For that reason I submit that the House ought to reject motion No. 10.
Motion No. 11 which the hon. member for Calgary North moved or brought forward this evening suggests that clause 24(9) be deleted completely. If I may, I should like to recall to the House the wording of clause 24(9). It provides:
(9) In determining the value of an expropriated interest, no account shall be taken of (a) any anticipated or actual use by the Crown of the land at any time after the expropriation:
This paragraph is designed to overrule or override a case of the Supreme Court of Canada. If there is no demand for the property other than the demand or requirement of the Crown for those purposes for which the Crown proposes to use the land, those purposes would not be taken into consideration under this paragraph in determining the value of the property. Paragraph (b) reads:
any value established or claimed to be established by or by reference to any transaction or agreement involving the sale, lease or other disposition of the interest or any part thereof, where such transaction or agreement was entered into after the registration of the notice of intention to expropriate;
We introduced that paragraph because we wanted to avoid any change in value after the registration of the notice of intention to expropriate had set in process the expropriation procedure. We want to avoid speculation or artificial transactions based on the anticipation of an expropriation. Paragraph (c) reads in part:
any increase or decrease in the value of the interest resulting from the anticipation of expropriation by the Crown-
Here again, this paragraph is designed to meet the problem which arises when prior to an expropriation there is public knowledge that there will be an expropriation. We do not want to penalize the interest of an owner in land by any decreasing in value of the land

February 9, 1970
Expropriation
which may result from such public knowledge; nor do we want to encourage speculation. Actually, paragraphs (b) and (c) are designed to prevent speculation in land in anticipation of an expropriation or after registration of the notice to expropriate has been filed. We do not want people to profit from the public use of land; we want them to receive fair value for it; we want them to recover any legitimate economic loss; but speculation in land is not something this bill is designed to encourage.
The final paragraph (d) reads:
(d) any increase in the value of the interest resulting from its having been put to a use that was contrary to law.
Surely my hon. friend from Calgary North will not argue too strenuously that if a property is being used as gaming-house or a house of ill repute the Crown should consider any so-called additional value as attaching to that property, and that that additional value ought to be compensable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is the authority for the minister's statement?


John Napier Turner: Let us consider the hon. member's argument, Mr. Speaker. What he is saying to the House is that here we have good, old, traditional common law rules set by the judges over the years and based on case law in Great Britain and Canada, and we do not want that case law substituted by these statutory rules, so he says.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I say to the hon. member for Calgary North that we are trying to substitute the uncertainty of the current judicial case law and the difficulty of researching that case law-the difficulty of putting forth in explicable language to the average citizen in Canada what that law is-by the certainty of codified rules for compensation. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North that neither he nor I can predict how the courts will interpret these statutory rules. He can put his interpretation on them and I can do the same. Under our British parliamentary system the courts will be left to read the statute as they find it.
I suggest to the hon. member there will be more certainty in the uncertain determination of certain statutory rules than in the uncertain determination of uncertain judicial rules. If we are comparing certainties, I hope I have the better of the argument. The hon. mem-

ber says the lawyers will have a field day under my system. I suggest they would have a bonanza under the system he recommends.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
minister a question? As the minister is aware, his distinguished colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has a certain project before a committee at the present time which is known as the white paper on taxation. One of the provisions has to do with a five-year revaluation for the capital gains tax. Has the minister borne in mind the fact that when the minister has his wicked way and that provision becomes the law of the land, unless my friends in the committee are able to frustrate him, it will have the effect of removing from the normal market the ability of a great percentage of the people of Canada to place pressure on the capacity to purchase land? There will no longer be a fair market value for the land, and consequently all the rules which the minister is suggesting will be negated. Has the minister taken that into account?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his argument is somewhat extraneous in substance to the motion now before the House. The Chair will assume that the discussion on motion No. 10 is completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very brief. It is not unfriendly nor contentious. The minister said something in response to my remarks which I think deserves comment, if I could have the floor for a minute.
The minister said that the intent of amendment No. 10, which we are now dealing with, was not moved in the committee. That is technically correct, Mr. Speaker. There was not an amendment which merely sought to strike out those few words. But may I point out, as recorded at page 81 of Minutes No. 5 of the committee, that the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) zeroed in, if I may use that popular parliamentary phrase, on the phrase "expectation of the public purpose for which the interest is expropriated". He said it was a very vague phrase. Most of his speech was against that part of the clause. Later the hon. member for Greenwood moved that the whole of paragraph (c) be struck out. This came to a vote which is recorded at page 94 of Minutes No. 5. The vote was 9 yeas, 9 nays, and the chairman said he was on the side of justice.
February 9, 1970

Expropriation


John Napier Turner: Naturally.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's what got us into this mess.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be the first to admit that that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member might have sought the floor the second time under the provisions of Standing Order 37, but I doubt very much-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May it be recorded I sought the floor a second time to correct something I believed had been said in error?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have now completed consideration of motion No. 10 and we will move on to motion No. 11. If there is no discussion on motion No. 11, we will turn to motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Brewin) moved:
That Bill C-136, An Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out the word [DOT]"shall" in section 24(1), line 33, page 19 of the bill and substituting therefor the word "may" and adding thereto the words "without restricting the generality of the provisions of section 23(1) hereof".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost, on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Brewin) moved:
That Bill C-136, An Act respecting the expropriation of land be amended by striking out of section 24, subsection 9(c), the following words at the end thereof:
"or other public purpose for which the interest was expropriated".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost, on division.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Brewin) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

February 9, 197Q
Division


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: As a negative vote has been taken in respect of combined motions 2 and 3 and since motions 4, 5 and 6 are consequential on combined motions 2 and 3, motions 4, 5 and 6 are deemed to have been dropped. I remind hon. members that motion No. 7 has already been adopted. Motions 8, 9 and 10 were negatived on division.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: At
the next sitting of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it be read the third time now. We have had the debate. It seems to me that it would be pointless not to give it third reading now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
can be read at the next sitting of the House just as well as tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my grievance arises from a question I directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) on February 2 which will be found at page 3081 of Hansard. It refers to what I said at the time was the excessive harassment of a Portuguese ship at the port of St. John's by the RCMP. I am not quarrelling with the minister's reply; I am merely taking advantage of the opportunity which this adjournment debate gives me to elaborate on the question and to enlarge upon the premise of the question, which I could not do during the oral question period.
On Monday, January 26, the Portuguese ship David Melgueiro, with approximately 800,000 pounds of fish, put into the port of St. John's as a consequence of a mishap at sea. During heavy seas off the coast of Labrador the vessel ran into some ice and developed a leak. She arrived at the port of St. John's on Monday, January 26. It had taken her about two or three days to get to port, during which time the crew had to be on watch at all times,


without sleep. I say this because it is important to what I am about to say.
When the vessel arrived at St. John's, the crew naturally prepared to make up for the two or three days in which they had to stand watch at sea. On the night of Tuesday, January 27, the vessel was raided by the RCMP and 15 to 20 officers were involved in the raid. During the conduct of that raid they confiscated a quantity of cigarettes, cigars, wine and the usual sort of thing-not an excessive amount; but the conduct of the RCMP is the basis of my grievance.
c (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the Portuguese fishing fleet has been using the port of St. John's for the last 400 years. I hope the parliamentary secretary will remain for a few minutes, because he might learn something. The Portuguese fleet has been using this port for the last 400 years, as a matter of fact so much so that the Portuguese crews are considered to be an integral part of the community life of St. John's. When an incident like this occurs, where there is evidence that excess was used in the conducting of a search-a legitimate search- by the RCM Police, it has the same effect as if the RCMP were to enter a private home in the city of St. John's and conduct themselves in the same way.
In his reply the minister indicated that an investigation was under way. We are anxious to know what the result of that investigation is, because if the Portuguese fleet is to be harassed in this way by the RCMP, obviously it is not going to use the port of St. John's because there are other port facilities available to it on the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. We are very anxious to retain in St. John's the business which accrues from the Portuguese fleet. It is a very important source of revenue to the port, and instead of this sort of conduct we should be treating them with the greatest of respect and doing everything we can to encourage them to use our port facilities which were put there at great expense by the government of Canada.
Because of the limited time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote directly from a letter sent to the Attorney General of Newfoundland by the master of the Portuguese vessel David Melgueiro, in which he recognizes the fact that there was an infringement of the law. Some whisky had been sold by a member of the crew, contrary to the regulations of the Portuguese authorities, and the regulations of the vessel. But notwith-
February 9, 1970

standing that fact, the master of the ship goes on to list eight points which I shall read into the record:
(1)	Roughly manhandling the crew and damaging their belongings.
(2)	Deliberately breaking padlocks and suitcases while members of the crew were endeavouring to open them.
(3)	Deliberate and quite unnecessarily breaking a framed religious picture.
(4)	Brutally dragging an injured seaman out of the infirmary bed and throwing the mattress and bedclothes on the floor, despite the screams of pain from this man.
(5)	Entering the officers' rooms while they were asleep and ransacking the contents of the rooms, which included their own clothing and belongings, as well as ship's documents and papers.
(6)	Breaking ship's doors and padlocks, again while we were in process of opening them with the proper keys.
(7)	Confiscating articles that had been stamped and legalized by the Customs in St. John's.
(8)	Seizing six weapons found on board, three of which were hunting guns, bought by me at a St. John's store and legalized by the Canadian authorities, and three other pistols which were ship's weapons, given to the ship by the Portuguese authorities, which until then, I had not had time or opportunity to legalize.
These are eight very important charges made by the master of this vessel against the RCMP for their conduct in the course of their search of this ship. Imagine, if you will, a ship that had run into difficulties in heavy seas off the coast of Labrador, made for what has been the traditional haven of the Portugese fleet, the port of St. John's, got into that traditional haven and the crew considered themselves lucky to be there. They were in the process of getting some well-earned rest when at midnight, to use the words of the master of the ship, in a Gestapo way of doing things 15 to 20 members of Canada's finest, the RCM Police entered this ship on legitimate business. They had ample evidence to indicate that smuggling had in fact taken place. The master concedes that in his letter when he says:
Unfortunately, without my knowledge and despite strict orders from the Portuguese authorities, one member of my crew had sold to two St. John's citizens four cases of whisky, in all a total of 48 bottles.
I recognize that this took place; but that does not for a moment excuse the way the RCMP conducted its search, disregarded the personal property of members of the crew, completely disregarded the ship's officers and showed a total disregard for a crew member who was sick in the infirmary. The captain was forced out of his bed at great discomfort 21701-5
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and with much pain, and a search was made of his belongings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: The captain is prepared to document this evidence by affidavit.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member was:	Has the Solicitor General
received complaints of what appears to be excessive harassment by the RCMP of Portuguese ships in the Port of St. John's? That was a general question about the treatment of Portuguese ships in the harbour of St. John's. That was investigated and found to be without foundation. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment.
Tonight the hon. member added a new dimension and a new series of charges as to the conduct of officers making a search in a proper, authorized way in the course of their duty. The facts are that in the course of regular harbour duty a truck was discovered being loaded from that ship with certain cases and that resulted in a search being made. The search resulted in proceedings under the Customs Act, and fines. There is no difference on that point.
As to the general question asked, I think I should make it clear at once that I know and appreciate the hon. member's concern for the treatment of Portuguese ships in St. John's harbour, because I think it is common knowledge that the conduct of Portuguese sailors- and I think I can say this in all fairness to other sailors-is among the very best in the sailing world. The conduct in that fleet is very good. Of 382 Portuguese ships entering the port last year, only six were searched. I think there is no complaint on that score.
The new charges brought forward tonight affect another subject which is quite separate in my mind, that is, the conduct of officers of the Canadian police forces in affecting that search. I have had no opportunity to check that at all. I will be very glad to have the matter checked at once and quite thoroughly, because there is an adequate procedure for proper disciplinary action if the charges are well-founded. That I will undertake to do. As to the other matter of there being any reflection on the conduct of Portuguese ships in the harbour, I repeat that this fleet is famous for its good conduct in that harbour. Far from there being any feeling of antagonism toward it, there is an opposite feeling, I think, on the
February 9, 1970
3400	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion part of law enforcement officers, no matter whether they are in the courts, members of the local police force or of other forces in the area.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ABITIBI- CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROAD

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) if he had received from the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce a letter requesting financial assistance for the completion of an access road to the Villebois resources, towards James Bay, in northwestern Quebec. The minister was not allowed to answer.
The following day, I received a phone call from a public servant, telling me the said letter had just been found and, having looked into it, the minister authorized a reply. I do not know whether that reply will be favourable or not but I should like to say tonight why the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce has appealed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
First, we know the minister heads a department which is supposed to assist in the development of underdeveloped areas. Now, in our area there is a lack of development and employment. Several families have to move to other areas and a great part of our labour force must earn a living in the neighbouring province.
Now, faced with our governments' inaction, businessmen in the area decided, after much consideration and reflection, to undertake the building of a road leading to the sea and to new natural resources, which are abundant in that vast area.
Under the direction of the local Chamber of Commerce, farmers, workers, woodcutters, miners and businessmen, and even unemployed people, contributed more than a quarter of a million dollars to clear the ground.
The Quebec government, while claiming to look favourably upon the building of such a road to James Bay, showed themselves sparing of their assistance. The Department of Forestry conceded a few woodcutting rights and granted a $60,000 subsidy to build a road 130 miles long. In my opinion, this is merely an agreement in principle.
The Chamber of Commerce is therefore asking for assistance from the federal government. The parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. O'Connell) may answer that he


cannot disregard the guidelines of the provincial government about roads and that the Quebec province should seek the assistance of the federal government. If my information is correct, the Quebec province has recently made an application for a $200 million subsidy which was turned down by the federal government.
There is one thing, however, which is annoying the people of Quebec. Under the guise of the sacrosanct autonomy, we are ready to pay taxes for the other provinces while depriving ourselves of the same advantages.
It is well known that around 1966, the Canadian government passed a law allocating around $100 million for the building of roads in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon in the next ten years.
We have nothing against the government building roads in the Northwest Territories in order to reach the wealth lying there. However, there are also resources in the northern part of Quebec and Quebecers are paying taxes to build roads in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
But we, for the sake of provincial autonomy, are depriving ourselves of the same advantages. We forget-God knows why,-to ask the co-operation of the federal government.
For instance, in 1965-67, we spent $4,465,000 to build roads in the Yukon, and we spent $4,590,500 in the Northwest Territories during the same period.
On April 8, 1969, we were told that within a few weeks, the building of 77 miles of highways between Fort Providence and Fort Simpson would be under way, for a lump sum of $2,404,000.
Yet, it was announced, in March 1969, that Ottawa would invest $343 million in Prince Edward Island which has a population of roughly 115,000, while the vast area of northwestern Quebec has a population of 180,000.
In view of these facts, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion came personally to Rouyn-Noranda, a few weeks ago, to meet the representatives of the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce, who it seems advised him of their financial needs. The minister then expressed the view that he was in favour of the idea.
The minister will assuredly answer that he cannot do it directly. However, I know he quite often has the opportunity of meeting Quebec ministers and talking with them. I am
February 9, 1970

sure that if he wants to, he can reach an agreement with them with a view to setting up a joint program.
The northwestern region is a designated area and its population is now leaving it. In order to enable the industries to develop the already existing resources, roads must be built. Therefore we ask the minister to get in touch with the Quebec authorities, in order to develop this region.
The department is willing to devote rather important sums to the development of processing industries, but we must have access to raw materials.
In my opinion it would be desirable to reach an agreement, to get in touch with the Quebec government with a view to getting its co-operation. Indeed, the government has funds it could devote to the clearing of northwestern Quebec and of the Northwest Territories as well-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Mr. Martin O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand the interest of the hon. member for Abitibi in the development of northwestern Quebec and particularly in the building of the road from Villebois to James Bay which is undoubtedly a project of great interest for the people of the area.
Last week, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) received a letter from the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce asking for financial help for the construction of that road.
In view of the fact that this request is now under consideration, it is much too early to announce what decision will be made in this respect. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the building of roads comes mainly under provincial jurisdiction and that according to the departmental terms of reference, financial help can only be granted for that kind of project if it comes within the framework of the special area program. Furthermore, such projects have to be essential to the success of a development plan prepared for that area.
Therefore, the minister will have to take this important factor into consideration in the answer he will give to the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce in the near future.
DEBATES	3401
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]



IMMIGRATION-DEPORTATION OF DESERTERS FROM U.S. ARMED FORCES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) earlier today whether he would order an independent inquiry by a judge or other person into incidents which occurred in Vancouver, or in British Columbia, on January 25. These incidents involved three United States army deserters who had entered Canada legally a couple of weeks earlier and who were on the evening of that day deported from Canada, in my submission without authority, without any deportation order, without the necessary warning and without any resemblance of lawful activity by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This matter is of the utmost importance. I would remind hon. members that some months ago the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) laid down the policy-I am summarizing it-that the military status of entrants to Canada from the United States was irrelevant and would not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the fact that these three young men were United States army deserters is irrelevant to our consideration.
My information is that they came intc Canada legally some weeks ago; that or January 25 they were taken into custody, oi apprehended or in some other way led from Bridal Falls to Huntingdon by two RCMP officers; that at Huntingdon they were interviewed by an immigration officer called Smith who found they had entered legally into Canada and that there was nothing wrong with the situation. I understand that one of these men telephoned the Reverend Hewett, a minister in Vancouver, from the Canadian immigration office in Huntingdon and said to him, "We are about to be deported. We do not want to be deported. Can you help us?"
These three young men then found themselves on the United States side under arrest. Who got them there? How did they get there? There is conflict between the information given me by Don Rosenbloom, a lawyer in Vancouver, by the RCMP officers in British Columbia and by the minister in a letter dated February 3.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The officers in British Columbia suggested that these three men wanted voluntarily to go to the United States, the kind of suggestion that only a fiction writer could have thought
February 9, 1970
3402	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of. Here were three men who had deserted the U.S. army and had come to Canada. The suggestion now is that they said, "Please take us across so that we can go to jail". The minister's letter to me does not make any such suggestion. In his letter the minister's suggestion is that these three men wanted to regularize their entry into Canada. How they could be so dumb as to regularize something that they knew was already regular, I do not understand.
The point is that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the information that I have is concerned, the behaviour of the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-and perhaps the behaviour of some immigration officer; I do not know-was sheer, illegal kidnapping; it involved putting these men across the border without any semblance of authority or action taken pursuant to the law.
According to Doug Collins on the television program last night, he spoke to the United States officer, Baty, who arrested these men on the U.S. side. Officer Baty informed Mr. Collins that he had been telephoned and informed that three deserters were going to be available on the U.S. side of the border. Then he came there and took them from the RCMP officers. These are some of the facts as related to me and as related to the people of Canada on television last night.
I am not blaming the minister in this case. It is not a question of my saying that the Solicitor General is in any way responsible. He could not know what the officers did. But I do say that it is a false sense of loyalty for him to be satisfied with an inquiry made "inside the show", for him to be satisfied with information given him by people who, even if they were the absolute apostles of truth, would nevertheless be influenced by the fact that they had to justify actions which, unless they could do so, were obviously outside the law. This is not the kind of inquiry that will give him or give this Parliament the truth.
The only way to get the facts is to have a judge or some other disinterested person inquire into the case. The minister should want this independent inquiry; it should not be necessary for me to pressure him to seek it. He should want it for the sake of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He should want it for his sake and for the sake of his department. If he is not ready to order such independent inquiry, I suggest he is either being misguided or he is so anxious to hide facts that would show his officers to be in the


wrong that he is prepared to jeopardize the reputation of the force.
I have heard on a number of occasions in the past about what appeared to be similar illegal action by officers who had taken people across the line from Canada to the United States and placed them in custody on the other side without the necessary deportation order. Before a deportation order can be issued legally, a special inquiry has to be held. People are entitled to be represented by counsel, and they are entitled to appeal from the deportation order if they wish to. None of this took place. Indeed, an inquiry made by Mr. Rosenbloom of the immigration department showed that there was no deportation order on record. There was no copy of such order at Huntingdon or anywhere else.
These three men who were in Canada legally suddenly found themselves under arrest on the other side. They did not cross the border voluntarily, because within an hour, I understand, of their arrest they kicked in the back of the truck or vehicle or paddy-wagon, or whatever it was they were held in, and escaped. Two of the men were recaptured. One of them, at least as of this afternoon, was still at large and seeking, I hope, to come back to this country. This kind of behaviour by officers of the Crown, acting in whatever capacity, cannot be tolerated in a democratic country and should not be condoned by the minister concerned. I am not suggesting that he is condoning it; I am suggesting that if he does not make the necessary independent inquiry he will be, in effect, objectively condoning it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question in the House of Commons this afternoon. I had anticipated he was going to raise it on Friday, but regrettably he was not here then. He had previously exchanged some correspondence with me, giving me certain information which I had investigated and replied to. He has given me certain additional information and participated in a television show last night which I did not see and, regrettably, I have not had the text of it delivered to me as yet. I told him this afternoon I would investigate this new material-I thought I made that very clear-before dealing with his point as to whether there is any need for a further inquiry of the nature he suggests.
The hon. member makes very many direct allegations. For instance, he says these men were deported from Canada. I do not know
February 9, 1970	COMMONS
this, but I do not believe they were. I am going to pursue that matter. In the material he supplies he refers to certain RCMP persons by numbers. The RCMP has no numbering system of any kind and there is obviously some error in his material in that respect. In any event, we have been unable to trace to whom the supplier of the information was referring in this regard. This is the kind of difficulty we still have to clear up.
The hon. member persists in talking about these men being put under arrest. The truth of the matter is that these men came and solicited information from a uniformed member of the RCMP while he was having his meal in a restaurant. This is how they came in contact-


David Lewis: So they say.


George James McIlraith: I think they expressed their pleasure with the mounted police for their entire conduct in this contact with the Agassiz detachment.


David Lewis: So the mounted police say.


An hon. Member:: Listen to him.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. member would be courteous and have the good manners to permit me to reply in so far as I can. I listened patiently to him, although
DEBATES	3403
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion it was difficult in respect of some of the conclusions he had jumped to without having sufficient evidence to support them. His conclusions are at least premature. I hope they will not be proven to be right, but even if they are, they are premature in view of the information he now has. Since I am limited to less than half the time he is given to make these allegations, I hope he will extend me the courtesy of allowing me to finish.
The point I am making is that we are dealing, in respect of the Bridal Falls episode-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now seemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned-


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did interrupt the hon. minister and I think he should be given another minute to complete his sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is not the practice at this late hour of the day. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Tuesday, February 10, 1970