1970-10-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the order in council concerning the appointment of parliamentary-secretaries, a matter I mentioned yesterday in the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has anything further to report in connection with the kidnapping of Mr. Cross in Montreal yesterday. I ask him the question because I assume that he is giving the matter his closest personal attention and is in close contact with the authorities in the province of Quebec. Is there anything further that the Prime Minister can report to the House at this time in connection with this terrible incident?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the assumptions of the Leader of the Opposition are correct. There have been close contacts between the governments. I have spoken to the Premier of
the province, and there have been several discussions between the Solicitor General and his opposite number in the Quebec government. I am giving the matter my closest attention and, indeed, other ministers are too. At this point I cannot usefully add any other comment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it true, as reported in the press, that police activity in seeking the kidnappers has been halted? If so, can the Prime Minister tell the House the significance of this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, though I did not hear this myself, that an authority in the Quebec government did say that there had been an interruption of police activities in their search for the kidnappers. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition will have to draw his own conclusions from that statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to pry into something that I ought not to pry into, but I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is indicating that he himself does not know the reason for this report? Is the Prime Minister indicating that he does not know why there has been a halt in or a suspension of police activities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would press me on this point. Perhaps he can conjecture a little bit, that if the police do not want the life of Mr. Cross to be endangered they are calling off their activities-or perhaps they are only pretending to. I do not know.


Mr. Horner:: Do you know or don't you know?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether or not consideration has been given to the federal government associating itself with the province of Quebec in making available a very large and substantial reward for evidence that would lead to the arrest and ultimate conviction of the wrongdoers? I sug-
October 6, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry gest this in all seriousness because my own experience in respect of conspirators is that they suddenly find themselves speaking up when there is the possibility of a substantial reward for doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have asked the Prime Minister a question. Silence does not answer a question that cannot interfere to any degree with security in regard to this unfortunate matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was remaining silent only until after the applause had subsided.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I intend to answer the question whether any consideration has been given; the answer is yes.



ABDUCTION OF SENIOR BRITISH TRADE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Following yesterday's events, does he intend to recommend to the Minister of Justice that the death penalty be applied in cases of kidnapping, as it is done in the United States, as a deterrent measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in the past, and particularly in the last 48 hours, the government has considered changing the law to this effect. The matter could perhaps be discussed once this unfortunate matter is concluded.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question. In the hope, as I believe is the case, that the government is doing all within its power in this very unfortunate situation, can the Prime Minister advise whether there will be any communication with the government of Cuba regarding this matter in view of the circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it would be helpful to know what the hon. member is suggesting- that we should make a deal with Cuba to receive the prisoners, or what is in the hon. member's mind?



ABDUCTION OF SENIOR BRITISH TRADE COMMISSIONER-TRAINING OF TERRORISTS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. He stated that he has not considered amending the legislation on capital punishment, and everybody understands that he cannot do so today. However, I would like to ask him whether the government is seriously considering the possibility of following more closely the movements of certain lunatics from Quebec who are going to Cuba, Palestine or Jordan to train as professional killers. Does the government intend to watch closely the movements of those individuals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again we would have to know who those people are. If the hon. member has in mind certain persons about whom he has information, it is his duty, in my opinion, to get in touch with the police. But if he is simply thinking of people who are travelling for various reasons, I would of course point out to him that we cannot keep watch on them all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make a statement but simply to ask a supplementary question.
Is the Prime Minister aware that not so long ago Mr. Pierre Nadeau, of the CBC, met in Palestine with two terrorists who had gone there in order to train for performing selective assassination in Canada? While our police forces are unable to find such people, newspapermen can. Would he explain this situation to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATURAL GAS-SEQUENCE OF APPROVAL OF EXPORT TO UNITED STATES AND CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Did the National Energy Board approve the construction of the pipeline north of the international border to take gas to the United States before the cabinet had authorized the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas to that country?
October 6, 1970	COMMONS


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under section 82 of the National Energy Board Act, Parliament has entrusted the National Energy Board with the determination of whether or not there is gas surplus to Canadian needs available for sale and also whether the price is just and reasonable in the public interest of Canada. That decision was made by the National Energy Board at its hearings which lasted many months, and the cabinet ratified the position of that board which has served the public interest for many years very well in this area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, having had a resume of the Act, may I ask the minister to answer the question. Did the National Energy Board authorize the construction of the pipeline to take the gas to the United States before the government had authorized the export of the gas to the United States?


John James Greene: If the hon. member would familiarize himself with the Act I think it might be helpful to him. The National Energy Board rules on export and the construction of pipelines to facilitate export in their decisions. Then that total decision is brought before the government for ratification or refusal. The government ratified the total decision, with the further injunction by virtue of regulation 11(a) that there be a continuing price review in light of the dynamics of the price structure in the international markets.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask if the two decisions, the decision to construct the pipeline to the Canada-United States border and the decision to allow the export of gas, were made at the same time or whether one was made prior to the other? Was the decision by the board to approve the construction of the line made prior to the decision to allow export of the gas?


John James Greene: I will be glad to send a copy of the decision of the National Energy Board to the hon. member so that he can familiarize himself with the facts before he comes out with public statements on the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John James Greene: Certainly the decision of the board lent itself to both the export of the gas
DEBATES	8803
Inquiries of the Ministry and the construction of the pipeline. Some decisions were made by the board and ratified by the government earlier this summer for the construction of completely Canadian pipelines to satisfy Canadian markets, particularly the Ontario market, where the Hearne plant in Toronto will be converted from oil to natural gas as an antipollution measure.
Mr. Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): May I ask the minister, since he now has answered in part, how much of the total construction to take the gas to the United States was contained in the construction approval which the minister has just mentioned for the Canadian firms to take gas to the Canadian consumers? Was this construction approved only for gas to be used in Canada or also for part of the gas going to the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the approvals that were given earlier in the summer were for purely Canadian consumption of natural gas and to meet Canadian needs. The current decision which has been approved by the cabinet was for both Canadian consumption and for exports.



POLLUTION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is he aware that there is some indication that the waters of James Bay and Hudson Bay are seriously polluted? Would the minister tell us if any action will be taken to suppress the causes of pollution in those waters?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I know that some mercury was found in James Bay and that that has had an adverse effect on fishing. Both federal and provincial officers are trying to identify the causes of pollution. I am told that it may be due to waste matters from pulp and paper mills along the coast of James Bay and all such establishments do not come under federal jurisdiction but under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

October 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question lor the Minister of National Defence. Can he say whether the destroyer construction program-I refer to the St. Laurent class-is on schedule and whether the companies involved have asked for any extras?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I regret to say that there has been a slippage of approximately one year in the timing of the program. An analysis is under way at the moment to determine to what extent this will affect the delivery dates and the availability of the ships for service. It will also indicate, since time is money, how much additional cost the treasury will be exposed to if the program is to go ahead in the form planned.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister starts work in his new portfolio will he give every assurance, in view of rumours that the leakage of money may be upward of $20 million, that he will not allow another Bonaventure fiasco to take place as did one of his colleagues sitting in the front row not far from him?



MANPOWER


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with reference to a wire forwarded to him from the Nova Scotia Minister of Labour protesting the suspension of 18 adult students by an instructor of adult training in Sydney, Nova Scotia, because they have made representations about training allowances which have been withheld. Would the minister have an investigation carried out to determine why these men and women have been suspended and immediately have them reinstated without any loss of benefit?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I appreciate the hon. member's interest and concern in this matter. I will certainly look into the matter and report to him as soon as I have any information.
[Mr. Chr6tien.l


Robert Muir: Would the minister also provide both the House and Nova Scotia's Minister of Labour with an explanation as to why the students would have to apologize to anyone, indeed, as requested by the instructor before being reinstated?


Otto Emil Lang: After I have looked into the matter I will know whether or not that is appropriate.


Robert Muir: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since when has it become necessary for the people of this country to apologize to bureaucrats for making justified representations and protests to elected representatives regarding an injustice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but his supplementary question appears to be slightly argumentative.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister concerning amendments to the Government Organization Act. Can he advise whether he contemplates lightening the load and brightening the way for the Minister without Portfolio from Longueuil by terminating the formal and legal role of the Minister of Communications as head of the Post Office Department?


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister waiting for applause again?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are any discussions being carried on between United States and Canadian authorities with regard to the possibility of deploying anti-ballistic missiles in the Canadian north? I imagine the minister has had a slippage and has forgotten he is Minister of National Defence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I owe the hon. member an apology. I did not hear his question.
October 6, 1970	COMMONS


David Lewis: That is what I surmised. I repeat my question. Are any discussions being carried on between United States and Canadian authorities on the possible deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in the Canadian north or in any other part of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: None at all, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question for the minister. I wish to ask him whether the authorities in Washington have kept the Canadian government informed about their ABM future plans and the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles near the Canadian border. While he is answering that question, could he also inform the House whether there have been any discussions with regard to the proposed AW ACS program and Canada's possible part therein?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could read the hon. gentleman's questions in Hansard and give him a more definitive answer tomorrow or the next day.



ADDITIONAL DETECTION FACILITIES IN CANADIAN NORTH AS PART OF U.S. ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. May I ask the minister whether any discussions are taking place regarding construction of additional and more refined radar and other detection facilities in the northern or any other part of Canada, which will be connected with the anti-ballistic missile system in the United States, or is construction actually taking place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I know of none.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I wonder if the minister at the same time would inform the House whether any information of this kind is received by the Canadian government from Russia?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, concern has been expressed in the House today regarding the export of Canadian gas, but my question concerns the export of another commodity. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the issuance of a statement regarding the matter of interna-
DEBATES	8805
Inquiries of the Ministry tional unions in view of the fact that figures have been published which would indicate that over the past six years unions based in the United States have taken from Canadian workers dues that exceeded benefits to the extent of $68 million?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
W ellington- Grey- Duff erin-W aterloo.



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey-Duf-ferin-Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for the fact that I represent parts of the four most important counties in the province of Ontario. I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is in connection with the new airport that is proposed to be built north and west of Toronto. Some time ago the minister indicated that a decision would be handed down this fall. In view of the interest in many areas, particularly in my own riding, can the minister advise when we may expect a statement and decision on this very important matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I thank the hon. member for whatever it is-for his question. The situation is as follows: In the first instance the detailed studies referred to in earlier questions and answers have been completed. The data, which is formidable in terms of size, is now being prepared in report form in order to get it down to manageable size. We will be holding discussions with the province of Ontario, as I committed myself to do, as soon as this work is completed, which I would anticipate would be within ten days to two weeks. The nature of our discussions with the province of Ontario will be to see if some mechanism can be devised whereby we can obtain the maximum amount of public participation in this matter before a decision is made. The central problem remains the one I mentioned in June, protection against the possibility of land speculation in advance of our final decision.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Have the proposed sites been narrowed down to three, four or five, and is the area of Beverley township, which is in my riding, one of them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
8806	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS COST OF FEDERALISM TO QUEBEC

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Since the Premier of Quebec has confirmed that the report on the cost of federalism in Quebec, extracts of which were published last week in a Montreal newspaper, indicates that there have been neither gains nor losses in the province, I would ask the Prime Minister whether this assessment of Quebec federalism seems correct to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion the question, as phrased, is hardly acceptable procedurally. The hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister to voice an opinion. I do not believe the question as expressed, to be in order and it might perhaps be rephrased.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During the last provincial election campaign, a report was published, emanating from the Federation liberale du Canada to the effect that Quebec received more from the federal than it contributed thereto.
Therefore, as the Quebec government has also published a report in that connection, I should like to know if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Maybe the hon.
member could rephrase his question. It would be much simpler than to rise on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister read the report of the Quebec government on federalism and the opinion expressed by the Quebec Premier to the effect that no loss and no gain were registered in Quebec because of federalism. Furthermore, I would like to know if the Prime Minister or his government intends to bring in a similar report to properly inform the Quebec taxpayers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that report. I know that excerpts were published in newspapers but I have neither read nor seen them. However, to my knowledge, it is a report drafted by Quebec government officials, some of whom, by the way, are no longer employed by that government.
If the Quebec government intends to hold these figures as exact and wants to send them

DEBATES	October 6, 1970
to us for debate, we shall be ready to consider them. However, the Quebec government has not yet brought these figures to my attention and I know that they have been communicated neither to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) nor to myself.
I do not see then how I could read a vague document drafted by former civil servants and published, so it seems, by wide-circula-tion newspapers.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As it is an issue which raises a good deal of interest among Quebec taxpayers, would the Prime Minister consider appointing a commission of independent experts who could make an extensive study of the subject and report on it in order to inform the taxpayers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be an error to try and make such an inquiry. I know it has previously been undertaken, but I do not believe that anyone can accurately measure in terms of dollars and cents the benefits involved in belonging to a united Canada. I believe these benefits are much greater than that.



SKAGIT RIVER-APPLICATION BY SEATTLE   CITY LIGHT COMPANY TO RAISE HEIGHT OF DAM-EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL RIVER IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has Seattle City Light applied to the federal government for a permit to raise the height of the Ross Dam and flood an estimated 6,000 acres of Canadian territory in the Skagit River Valley?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the permit under which Seattle Light is operating is that granted by the International Joint Commission in 1942. To the best of my knowledge no current permit has been applied for. It is my understanding that Seattle Power is operating under the apprehension that no new permit is required.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
October 6, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Fraser Valley East has been recognized for a supplementary.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are we, then, to understand that the International River Improvements Act of 1955 does not supersede any agreements made prior to that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to suggest to the hon. member that he is inviting an expression of opinion of the minister. I would not think the question is acceptable. The hon. member for Kooteney West on a supplementary.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the information we have had from the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that a permit would have to be sought by Seattle City Light. My supplementary question is: Has there been any change in this procedure? If not, what type of investigation will the federal government initiate prior to making a decision on the flooding of the Skagit Valley?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give a legal opinion as to what is required, but it appears to me that after the expiry of some 18 years-


Some hon. Members:: Twenty-eight years.


John James Greene: -28 years, excuse me, and the change in the public ethic as to whether a commercial sale of this nature would be more advantageous than the preservation of the natural resource, we should endeavour to have a new public hearing, and I am attempting to find a manner of so doing.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to earlier questions regarding the Skagit Valley. Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources instructed or requested the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission to reopen its 1941 decision on the Skagit Valley?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the avenue of achieving a review and a new hearing is being explored, as well as other possibilities which might render an even more expeditious hearing possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT MEETINGS

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the minister take the first opportunity under motions to give the House a full report on the meetings that were held recently at Geneva to make the International Grains Arrangement a more workable instrument? More specifically, will he indicate who represented Canada at these talks and what country or countries were mainly opposing the Canadian formula?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a statement on motions would be appropriate at this stage. These meetings were preliminary in their nature, with a view to exploring whether negotiations could go forward on a sound basis. Canada was represented by senior officials, including a commissioner of the Wheat Board.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as the terms of reference of the Indian Claims Commissioner do not include a review of aboriginal and treaty rights, and because of the growing concern over these matters on the part of Canadians of Indian ancestry, will the government revise the terms of reference so that this fundamental issue might be reviewed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question, which has already been raised on several occasions, has been studied by the government.
The Indian Claims Commissioner's office comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. I think it would be untimely to change the terms of reference now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I address a similar question to the Prime Minister, since this is his

October 6, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry responsibility. Will he enlarge the membership of the Claims Commission, as was the original intent, so that this vitally important matter may be dealt with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference have been stated and there is no intention in the government's mind to change these terms of reference at this time. The position of the government was stated at the time the minister made known his white paper to the House. At that time I remember that we had the support of all opposition parties. The only complaint was that we had come a bit too late with it but that it was time we came up with it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower in charge of the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All the more power to the man. In view of reports of the resignation of Mr. McNamara, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, can the minister inform the House whether there is such a resignation and when it will take effect?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board has resigned. His resignation is accepted with great regret, effective indeed, as of today. The Chief Commissioner of course performed tremendous services for the farming population of Canada in this role and it is therefore with deep regret that we find his period of service coming to a close.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POST OFFICE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Min-

ister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office whether it is his intention to seek supplementary estimates with regard to the losses of the Post Office associated with the postal dispute? If so, can he indicate to the House the size of the losses associated with the Post Office dispute?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether it is intended to submit supplementary estimates in connection with the Post Office Department having in mind the reported losses as a result of the postal dispute and, if so, what are the losses? There must be somebody in the government who can give the House this information.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: There has not been a revision of the budget of the Post Office for the balance of the fiscal year and consequently I am not in a position to give the hon. member the figures he seeks.


Gerald William Baldwin: Use the contingency fund.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It relates to the speech he made in Langley, British Columbia, on Saturday last, in which he proposed the establishment of national water quality standards, consolidation of pollution control agencies and the establishment, among other things, of a national environmental council. My question is, was the minister expressing government policy when he made his proposals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that this question may be asked of the Prime Minister and not of the minister who made the statement outside the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct this question to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What was it?
October 6, 1970


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps I could repeat it. I hope the Prime Minister will read the speech made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in Langley, British Columbia, during the course of which he proposed the establishment of national water quality standards, the establishment of a national environmental council and the consolidation of pollution control agencies. I was asking whether the minister was stating government policy when he made those proposals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to look at the speech before I could answer in any definite way. Some of the elements quoted by the hon. member are, indeed, government policy, for example, when he talks about water standards. But other elements are not.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONFERENCE WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS -AVAILABILITY OF MORE MORTGAGE MONEY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is a related one concerning the conference the minister held with the financial institutions. Did the minister indicate to the representatives of these institutions that the government rejected both the idea of legislation directed to improving the situation as well as the use of building societies as a means of generating more money for housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate to the lending institutions when I discussed this subject with them that such measures were rejected.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. May I ask whether the hon. gentleman consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before he made that speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that question is in order.



HOUSING


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: My question is directed to the hon. gentleman listed on the roster as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing, which is a strange but perhaps true definition. It arises out of the futile inquiries made by prospective users of Central Mortgage and Housing services in an attempt to obtain individual family housing. When will there be effective access to mortgage funds applicable to private family housing? At the present time funds are not available in this area.


Robert Knight Andras: I would need more precise information concerning the location to which the hon. gentleman is referring before I could give him a positive answer. As put, his question is so general that I could give him many indications of circumstances in which this situation might not apply. But I am sure he has a problem and I would be glad to look into it if he will give me the details.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact, as I understand it, that housing starts for the first eight months of this year are down by approximately one-third, and that by the end of the year we shall only reach a total of approximately 175,000 starts, being a decrease of some 15 per cent compared with last year, is the minister in a position to tell the House and the nation what proposals he is prepared to recommend and support in order to generate more money for housing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is inviting the minister to make a statement which would normally be made on motions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FIRM SALES COMMITMENTS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also responsible for the Wheat Board. Bearing in mind the optimistic statement made by the minister that more than 700 million bushels of grain are likely to be sold in the current year, may I ask whether the minister can inform the House concerning the extent of present firm wheat sale commitments?


Otto Emil Lang: It is not normal practice to make known the precise state of commitments at any given point in time; there are a
8810	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry variety of reasons for keeping this kind of information confidential. However, I can repeat the statement I made that the prospects are now very good for exports at those levels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can
the minister inform the House when the resignation of Mr. McNamara will take effect and who his successor will be?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



BARLEY-AMOUNT OF FINAL PAYMENT TO FARMERS

John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville concerning projected sales. Bearing in mind projected sales and sales already confirmed, particularly with regard to feed grain and barley, may I ask whether the minister is in a position to tell us the estimated amount farmers might expect to receive as the final payment for barley? Absence of this information leaves western Canada and the agricultural industry in a great deal of confusion, now knowing what to expect as the final payment on barley. Since he is aware of committed barley sales as far ahead as July, the minister is in a better position to supply this information.


Otto Emil Lang: It is not normal to make a forecast very much ahead of the closing of a pool but I will be glad to investigate whether it might be possible to pick a date for giving some advance information this year.



WHEAT-PRICES OF RECENT SALES

John George Diefenbaker: I preface my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with my congratulations on his having been raised to the elevated position of a full minister. I do this most sincerely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Watch out!


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing so sad as those who have developed a capacity for being suspicious. Without endeavouring to secure the exact prices in connection with the wheat sales that have been taking place

DEBATES	October 6. 1970
recently, I would ask the minister whether he is in a position to say that the prices were within the International Grains Arrangement or its successor, even though that agreement was not generally signed, or are these sales being made at fire-sale prices?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe the right hon. gentleman posed in his question two alternatives, neither of which, in fact, reflects the situation. Wheat Board prices are fairly well known and are evident to the public. Prices have been rising steadily but remain below the minimum levels set under the International Grains Arrangement.


John George Diefenbaker: The question I particularly asked was: Are these prices at which the wheat is being sold at a fire-sale level, similar to those which were in effect in 1938 when the plug was pulled and the price was anything at all as long as the wheat could be gotten rid of?


Otto Emil Lang: As I have indicated, the prices are known. Prices have been rising. They have been ranging between $1.71 and $1.77 based on No. 1 northern. These are prices which are competitive in the world. I would have thought the right hon. gentleman and hon. members generally would approve of selling wheat at competitive prices and getting into this market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question to the minister. I recognize there is certain information which the minister cannot give to the House but surely he can tell us what firm commitments there are for the sale of wheat to date in this crop year. Can the minister give us this information today, or undertake to get it and supply it to the House at a later date?


Otto Emil Lang: It is the global total which I would certainly hesitate to give. Within that global total there are important sales, many of which are made without an identifiable destination at this stage due to the nature of the international wheat business, so this information would not be very helpful, and since I am not prepared to give the global figure there is really no additional information I can make available.
October 6, 1970	COMMONS



GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN ALLEGED &quot;NUDIE FLICK&quot;

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. This is a matter dealing with films and flesh upon which the Prime Minister is an authority. Did the Canadian government invest a substantial amount of public money in a motion picture now being made in Montreal by Cinepix described as a nudie flick and, if so, how does this help Canadian culture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, recently I received from a number of Edmonton school children signed petitions urging the showing of more family type movies in the theatres. I understand this is only the beginning of a major expression of opinion against the kind of material now being put out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member will appreciate that the question he asked in the first instance would normally be placed on the order paper. If he believes there is urgency and that the matter should be debated it can be considered at the time of adjournment this evening.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving concurrence in the amendments made to Bill C-4 in the other place on the recommendation of the committee on banking, trade and commerce of the other place, I think it appropriate that I say a few words in explanation thereof.
First of all, the amendments made in the other place, and in which concurrence is sought today, make no fundamental change to
DEBATES	8811
Canada Corporations Act Bill C-4-the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. In fact, in my view and that of the government the amendments made in the other place improve upon the bill as originally drafted and as originally presented and passed by this House. I trust that this afternoon those amendments made in the other place will be acceptable to the members of this House.
As I said, a number of changes were made in the other place, many of them of a very technical nature. I do not propose this afternoon to deal with them all, but it might assist hon. members if I were to refer to those changes which appear to me to be of the greatest significance or importance.
Firstly, amendments were made regarding section 38 of the Canada Corporations Act, the part of the act relating to constrained-share companies. An amendment was put forward in the other place by me that would allow a federally incorporated company which is engaged in the publication of a newspaper to qualify as a constrained-share company so that it could restrict, if it so chose, the transfer of its shares to non-residents.
Such a company, as hon. members know, must maintain a requisite degree of Canadian shareholder participation if the advertising expenses incurred by Canadian taxpayers in the advertising in such newspapers are to be deductible under the provisions of section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The amendment that was made in the Senate is designed to give a newspaper company-that is, a public company-the means to comply with section 12A of the Income Tax Act and, in this way, to protect its necessary qualifications under that act.
Another amendment to the constrained-share company provisions to Bill C-4 which was made in the other place would allow a company incorporated with the objects of investing in the shares of other corporations, and which has a significant or controlling interest in a federally incorporated trust, insurance, loan, small loans or sales finance company, to become a constrained-share company. Although the intention had been from the beginning to cover the situation of these holding companies, the actual wording used in the bill did not extend to them. This has been corrected in the other place, and in my view is a desirable change as a federally incorporated holding company could lose its voting rights in its insurance, trust, loan, small loans or sales finance company if con-
October 6, 1970

Canada Corporations Act trol of the holding company were to fall into the hands of non-residents.
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-4 contains provisions that would allow a shareholder entitled to vote at a meeting to present a proposal called a shareholder's proposal to a meeting of the company. Upon receipt of the shareholder's proposal the company will have to decide whether it accepts or opposes the proposal. If the management of the company opposes the proposal put forward by the shareholder and makes a solicitation of proxies, the company will be required to include in its information circular a statement to the shareholders of not more than 200 words in support of the proposal.
Bill C-4 as presented to the House and passed contains a number of safeguards against shareholders presenting frivolous or vexatious proposals. An amendment has been made in this respect in the other place adding additional safeguards and providing, in effect, that if a shareholder makes more than two proposals within five years he would be required, when the two first proposals have not been accepted by the shareholders, to deposit with the company a sum of money sufficient to cover the costs of circulating any additional proposal to the shareholders, the money deposited as security being returned by the company to the shareholder.
On the other hand, if the proposal is not accepted the company will reimburse itself of the cost it incurred in circulating the proposal, any surplus being returned to the shareholder. This seems an appropriate addition to the safeguards already in the bill.
Hon. members will recall that the House committee put in additional safeguards against frivolous shareholder proposals in addition to those originally contained in the bill; the other place has put in further safeguards. None of these impairs the right and opportunity of legitimate shareholders to put legitimate proposals before their fellow shareholders.
Amendments have also been made to the provisions regarding the investigation and inspection procedures which involved the attention of the House committee as well as the Senate committee. I do not wish to refer to all of them here; it might be sufficient for me just to mention briefly those that I think are the most important and which have the greatest bearing on the investigation and inspection sections.
Hon. members will recall that an application for an investigation of the affairs of a

company could be made to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission by five or more shareholders holding a specified number of shares in the company, or by the minister on his own initiative. As the bill was originally drafted, such an application for an investigation would have been ex parte or upon such notice to such person as the commission may have required. An amendment made to the bill in the other place would, in effect, turn this around and provide that a notice of the application be given to the company and other interested parties unless-and I think that this is an important proviso-the commission is of the opinion that, in view of the allegations contained in the application, the giving of a notice would unduly prejudice any investigation that might be ordered by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Turning the onus around and requiring notice to the company and to interested persons unless the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission sees good reason to the contrary better expresses in my view, the intention behind the words of the provision as originally drafted, and will provide some specific guidelines to the commission as to the manner in which it should exercise its discretion as to whether or not a notice of the application for an investigation should be given.
Other amendments made in the other place, and in which concurrence is asked this afternoon, would require an application by shareholders for an investigation to be in the form of a "solemn declaration".


Mr. MacLean:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member is not asking me to make a ruling on this. My understanding is that the other place is referred to as "the other place" in debate, although in practice I suppose it does not make too much difference. The minister may use his own good judgment in this regard.


Gerald William Baldwin: When the minister speaks of "the other place" we know what he really has in mind.
October 6, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am grateful for the intervention. It was my understanding that the other place, as you said, Your Honour, was to be referred to as "the other place". For readers of Hansard we will take it as being noted that "the other place" is the Senate.
As I pointed out, this would require an application by shareholders for an investigation to be in the form of a solemn declaration, which means a statutory declaration. This again is designed to deter applicants from making irresponsible or careless statements in an application to the commission for an investigation.
Another amendment would specifically recognize the right of a company and other interested parties to whom a notice of an application for an investigation has been given, to appear before the commission when the application will be dealt with and be heard on the application. This provision would not, of course, apply when the commission will have decided that notice of the application should not be given because the commission is of the opinion that the giving of the notice would unduly prejudice any investigation that might be ordered.
Finally, with respect to the investigation and inspection process, I should mention that some clarification has been brought to the wording of some of the grounds on the basis of which the commission could order an investigation. This is a matter of great concern to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Hon. members will recall that one of these grounds upon which an investigation could take place related to, and I quote from the bill "one or more acts performed in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the interests of any shareholder". This has been slightly changed to read "one or more acts performed wrongfully and in a manner prejudicial to the interests of any shareholder".
Finally, a new section 37 has been added to the bill providing in effect that compliance with provincial legislation, wherever relevant, shall not exempt a company to which the Canada Corporations Act applies from complying with the provisions of that Act. The view was expressed in the other place that it might be useful to have such a provision in the Canada Corporations Act in order to ensure that federal companies will not be under the mistaken assumption that the fact that they comply with the provincial legislation does not relieve them from complying with the federal legislation.
As I said in my opening remarks, the amendments made in the other place-for
Canada Corporations Act readers of Hansard in the Senate-do in my view improve the bill, and in no way change it in any fundamental respect. All of them are acceptable to me and to the government. I hope they will commend themselves to members of this House so that this important piece of legislation, first introduced in this House over a year ago and thoroughly reviewed by a committee of this House and a committee of the other place, will before this session ends become the law of the land. I will of course be happy to deal, by way of answer to questions, with any of the specific amendments that have been made in an endeavour to explain them to hon. members. I have simply endeavoured to deal with those I regard as the most important.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 has had a long history in Parliament. We first discussed this at second reading on November 10 last. The bill was then brought forward again in January, following which it went to the committee and was ultimately dealt with in this House on June 10. At that time several amendments were put forward and decided upon. The matter then went to the other place.
One must bear in mind that we are now dealing with some 25 amendments, some of which came from the other place. I give three cheers to the other place. They were able to convince the minister in respect of more than one particular point in respect of which he proved to be rather obdurate-I hesitate to use the word obstinate-when he appeared before the Commons committee. He was supported at that time by a majority of government members who refused to see the light of day at that time. It is instructive that both he and those members are now going to support at least the principle of many of the amendments made in the other place.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Always an open mind.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Many of these changes were suggested in the Commons committee. Naturally, there may have been some profit obtained in the other place from a reading of the Commons committee reports on this matter. If one reads the House debates of November 10, as I have done, particularly the statement of the minister at that time, one will find that the minister and his officials larded the remarks with their selfsatisfaction in the production of what they thought was a pretty good bill.
But experience has shown that 39 pages of amendments were brought before the House
October 6, 1970

Canada Corporations Act committee on finance. In respect of one part of the bill, I think we received a third version if not a fourth version. One must, therefore, conclude that the original preparation must have been pretty sloppy. Certainly, there could be more changes even now. Personally, I find all of the amendments before us acceptable.
It was my hope that the minister would go a little further in certain areas, particularly with regard to costs. He was eventually reasonable in respect of notice to the parties concerned so that we are not going to have a sort of star chamber inquisition or investigation launched into the affairs of a company without its prior knowledge. This was quite permissible under the original version that was put to us and vigorously defended. We now see that perhaps reason has prevailed.
Let me merely say that on re-reading the remarks of the sponsoring gentleman in the other place on second reading, I find he confirms what I said last November, last June and time and time again in the committee, that it is not so much an amendment to the Canada Corporations Act the minister wants but a sort of pseudo securities act. The minister was not able to answer me positively as to the purpose which the information filed would serve.
These regulations relate really to a securities act. I have in mind information in respect of insider trading, disclosure and so forth. That has nothing to do with an act in respect of the incorporation of companies. The filing of returns and provisions as to the handling of proxies are usually corporate matters. In the province of Ontario, and in most common law provinces, there is a securities act along side this act which deals with those matters aiming to protect the public by greater disclosure.
No one is objecting to greater and better disclosure of corporate information, but this should be done through the appropriate statute. If one intends to protect the public, it should be done under a securities act because shares are going to be placed on the market and people will be invited to invest in those corporations. This has no relation whatsoever to private companies because the public is precluded from any invitation to invest.
Therefore under the new practice, lumping into the same basket private and public companies which are incorporated under the federal corporations act will have the result that few if any persons will want to incorporate either public or private companies under fed-

eral charter. It will be much easier and better to incorporate under provincial companies' acts and then avail themselves of foreign registration under the various provincial acts. It is as simple as that.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
All this could have been avoided and can be avoided. If the minister and the government were honest with this House they would agree publicly with the many suggestions made from this side. I have been making such suggestions for about three or four years at least. We want a national securities commission, but not one dominated by the federal government because the federal government has neither the machinery nor the interest. Frankly, it does not have the appropriate jurisdiction. It has partial jurisdiction. In this particular case there should be agreement between the federal government and the provinces that there should be a national securities commission, not to be seated here in Ottawa but in Toronto next to the major stock exchange. There could be branches in Montreal and Vancouver or wherever there should be. Then, Canada would have an appropriate national securities commission. However, we in this House do not have the jurisdiction for even a pseudo securities commission under the provisions of this act. The mountain has travailed a great deal and has not even produced a mouse.
Under the provision for disclosure, where statements are put on a file, a fee must be paid in order to obtain any information for say insider trading. There is no machinery or operation under the Corporations Act for compiling and publishing reports about insider trading as there would be under an appropriate securities act. The information will lie in the various files. Anyone who wishes to inquire about an individual corporation would have to pay a fee and look through all the files. What cumbersome machinery that is! The minister knows he does not have either the machinery nor the authority to collate and publish the information. Under the Corporations Act there is absolutely no authority for the minister to publish the information, whereas it could be done under an appropriate securities act. There is no doubt, in respect of a particular file, an individual who is interested can come and have it looked at; that is so. The minister cannot ask any more than he is authorized to do. I defy him to say that he will be able to publish information or files under the authority of the Canada Corporations Act. This authority does not exist.
October 6, 1970
Yet these are the grounds he gives to justify some other requirements of these amendments. They cannot provide information in the public interest. It is a sham; it is empty.
I need only refer to Senator Urquhart's introduction of this bill at second reading when he spoke about better information for investor protection. If hon. members are interested I can read this into the record, but I think I have made my point. That is not the purpose of the Canada Corporations Act. I do not wish to keep repeating the speeches I made in committee and on other occasions with regard to all of the amendments. So far as these before us are concerned, I think they are an improvement. Some of them are merely consequential and of little import. In paragraph 20, page 53 there is an amendment which changes the word "unless" to the word "but". There may be some requirement for that, but in any event the situation is the same. I know there were some difficulties. Certainly, I agree with the change concerning fraud, misconduct or other misconduct, because the French version, as I subsequently read it, certainly left the whole question wide open. Now, the ejusdem generis rule will clearly define the conduct which might be reprehensible and on which there will be appropriate ground for the minister to act.
Having said that, I should like to see this bill pass at this session because we certainly do not want to go through all this again next year. I hope that by then I can convince the minister he should negotiate with the provinces in a meaningful way in order to get an appropriate national securities act and a national securities commission.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which I shall explain, it is our intention to vote against this measure and also to urge government members to support us in voting against this measure-against the amendments. Bill C-4 represents a change that is taking place after five years. The Corporations Act is being amended. These amendments were supposed to correct a great deal of mistrust that had grown up about the marketing of Canadian securities. Canada had a very bad reputation in international areas because of the way in which we handle securities and the way our companies operate. This bill was an attempt to correct some of the existing abuses. In our view, Bill C-4 does not go far enough. In the committee and in the House we objected very strongly to the fact that the disclosure provisions were not
Canada Corporations Act adequate. We still feel they are inadequate and will have to be changed.
Nevertheless, there is one thing with which we do agree. The bill had its day in committee. It had its day in the House of Commons. All of us had an opportunity to present our arguments. Unfortunately, our position was not accepted but we cannot say that the democratic process as we now know it was not acceded to, that we did not have a chance to say what we had to say or that the people, through their representatives, were not able to speak either for or against the provisions. It is another thing, however, Mr. Speaker, when we see amendments come in from a chamber that is not representative. It is very difficult for us to understand why amendments from such a chamber should be agreed to in this House. In other countries there are second chambers. I think a case can sometimes be made for such things, provided they are representative or that the members are elected by the people.
One can argue that there are times when such a place would present the views of various minority groups or represent the will of the population. Even in a country like Great Britain with the hereditary House of Lords, some argument can be made for some of the work that is done because of the broadly representative nature of some of the people who are appointed to that chamber. But what argument can possibly be made for agreeing to the amendments that come from the other place. Rather than call it a chamber of sober second thought it often appears to be the chamber of corporate veto. With few exceptions, the people in that chamber do not represent the various and diverse interests in this country but rather corporate points of view.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will appreciate that perhaps the Chair should intervene at this moment to remind him that we have before us now a very specific amendment. It appears to the Chair that the hon. member is straying some distance from the principle of the amendment before us. It appears that he is debating for the consideration of hon. members the role and mission of the second chamber in the parliamentary system. I am not too sure that this is what is under review by the House at the present time. It may be that the hon. member's comments are introductory in nature, that in due course he will come to the

October 6, 1970

Canada Corporations Act motion now before us. I would invite him to bear this in mind.


Max Saltsman: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the point I am trying to make will be a little more obvious as I proceed, and I am trying to relate my remarks specifically to the amendments before us in order to point out their significance, their importance and their relationship to the bill. It could be argued that the people who drafted these amendments are experts, and no doubt they are experts when one looks at the directorships that they hold. However, it is very much like asking the generals of a country to make foreign policy, or asking the pulp industry to legislate a reforestation program or the mining industry to create an anti-pollution program or the automobile industry to set down safety standards for cars, or even to have burglars review the Criminal Code in order to improve it. There is no intention on my part, or on the part of anyone in this party, to impute motives to anyone or to make any suggestion that there has been impropriety.
What we are trying to point out is that the composition and the nature of the committee that sent back these amendments makes it virtually impossible for us to take any of their suggestions with any degree of seriousness. The reason is that if we look at the various measures that have come from there, whether they be recommendations on the white paper on tax reform or, to refer to the specific amendments before us, the recommendations of the committee that we are now considering, we can see that in every single case every suggestion that was made was to strengthen corporate power, to prevent disclosure, to make it more and more difficult for the public to come to grips with the corporations in our society. It is difficult for us to understand what special wisdom resides there, particularly when one sees that often the directorships that the members in the other place hold came to them after their appointments rather than before. One wonders whether there is some special magic wand in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) office which he waves over them. This gives them some special knowledge and wisdom that they would otherwise not have. Perhaps he anoints them with some special liniment which gives them some special corporate knowledge that they did not possess before.
When we examine the amendments-and in his opening statement the minister pointed out that he is pleased with the amendments-

one remembers that, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out quite correctly, when some of them were suggested to the minister in the committee he raised some very valid arguments against the adoption of some of these proposals. Between the time that he raised those arguments in the committee and the time these amendments arrived from the other place, there has been some change of heart. We are glad to see that the minister is capable of learning in this particular way.
Let us take a look at the amendment on the trust companies which contains a definition of an insider. It is possible now, as a result of the amendments from the other place, for a trust company to circumvent one of the main intentions of the act which was to ensure that no one would have more than 10 per cent of the voting shares without having to declare that he was an insider. The point that was made in the other place was that a trust company, because it had a number of branches, might inadvertently acquire more than 10 per cent of the shares and therefore come afoul of the legislation. This should not be. The question that needs to be asked is whether it is really important whether they do it deliberately or whether it comes about unintentionally. The fact of the matter is that this corporation would have more than 10 per cent of the shares and would be an insider. It would have the power that this legislation originally tried to limit, and yet it is going to be excluded because this particular amendment was introduced on the basis that the corporation has very little control over the situation.
All that is at stake in this insider amendment is that these shareholders be forced to disclose the fact that they are insiders. My reading of the legislation is such that it would seem they are not being asked to divest themselves of their holdings over the 10 per cent. We recognize that they have more than 10 per cent in some cases. They are not being asked to close down an account or to say to a client: I am sorry, we cannot take you on because this will bring our holdings to more than 10 per cent. They are simply being asked to disclose that they have more than 10 per cent. The other place has objected mightily to this provision, and as we go through these amendments we see that in every single instance where it is possible to strike a blow against disclosure, against providing more public information, the other place has done so.
October 6, 1970

I want to say something about the minister, and it is to his credit. I have been following the work in the other place and as it has proceeded I have also been trying to keep track of the minister who has been running around like a shining little fire engine trying to put down the fire that was developing over there, refusing to agree to some measures and going along with others. He has recognized the potential damage of some of these amendments and he has watered some of them down before they came to us. Nevertheless, he has not been able to put out the fire completely and now, it seems to me, he has had to agree to live with some of these amendments and to legitimize them as he has done today in his opening remarks.
In other areas we see that wherever the other place could confuse, wherever they could insert a word to confuse rather than to clarify, they have done so. It seemed to me that the intent of the bill was quite clear. They put in words such as "willful" which is a lawyer's delight. People can argue for ever as to whether or not an act was willful. The other place added words of that type and they have done so knowingly. This is what comes through in some of these amendments.
In the course of the debate an interesting example was provided of why words like "knowingly" and "willfully" should be inserted. Members of the Senate Committee felt that there were some things that happened in our society which had to be taken into account. I should like to quote from a speech made by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on September 29, as recorded in the committee proceedings, in which he gives a particular example of why these words have to be added. He is talking about the sending out of proxies which have to be sent by prepaid mail. I quote from page 1419:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This must be sent by prepaid mail. Now, let us assume that the messenger is on his way to the post office to mail this bundle of proxies with the information circulars and he slips on the ice or somebody knocks him on the head, and when he recovers and picks up his bundle, some have fallen out and are lost.
Then, horror, the company is subject to prosecution! I know that is something that happens all the time, with messengers going out, slipping on ice, knocking themselves out and losing bundles. It seems to me people in the other place were really reaching for far-out examples and almost impossible situations in order to justify making this legislation murky, and to hide their intent behind the
Canada Corporations Act words they suggest. I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not think we can accept these kinds of amendments put forth for this kind of purpose.
The Senate also proposes an amendment to clause 106H(10). This would seek to limit democratic opportunities within corporations. It is clear enough that today corporations are far from being democratic. Bill C-4 makes a very slight attempt to democratize corporations, giving shareholders an opportunity to voice their dissent or to raise questions, but not satisfied with the already stringent provisions in this respect in the bill as it exists now, members of the other place propose to go further and limit the right of a shareholder with regard to the number of times he can make a proposal, and circumscribe the shareholder in a way that is not necessary. Rather than going in this direction it seems to me that we should be moving the other way, because there are many things about a corporation which people object to today.
It is no longer a matter of just questioning the corporation officers on how much profit they made, or how they conducted the financial affairs of the corporation. Today shareholders are developing a social conscience. They want to know what measures the corporation is taking with regard to pollution. They want to know its labour policies and its attitudes toward society generally. This is an increasing concern on their part. We are starting to see attempts being made by shareholders to get information and make management responsible in these areas.
Any effort that blocks off such avenues, that makes it more difficult for shareholders to question corporation officers is a move in the wrong direction, and is one which I suggest is against the best interests of society. What would we say if someone made that argument about Parliament, or about democracy generally? What if someone said, "Elections are too frequent and people object too much. Each person can put his oar in. People must file a deposit before they can vote, and must file a deposit before they can raise an objection against a politician." We would think that uproariously funny. At a time when we are moving in the direction of making our political institutions more open, more accessible, and more responsive to the needs of our society, we are being asked to accept an amendment to restrict such opportunities within a very important segment of our society.
I am going to ask hon. members of this chamber to reject these Senate amendments,
8818	COMMONS
Canada Corporations Act even though this would mean rejecting a government bill. Despite the minister's apparent full endorsation of the amendments I suspect he is not really that happy about what has happened, and perhaps he will not be angry with Liberal backbenchers if they reject these amendments. We would not look upon such rejection as a motion of no confidence in the government but rather as a motion of confidence in Parliament, in Parliament's right to decide matters of this sort, and in Parliament's right to reject what, in my view, is an improper vehicle from the other place. This is why I ask hon. members for their support in rejecting these amendments.
These proposed Senate amendments do not add to the bill; they do not improve it. In our view they make the bill more difficult, and less democratic and less responsive to society's needs. The minister may reply that if we take such action there will be a delay in implementing needed reform. I acknowledge this argument. But it seems to me that any time we want to assert ourselves in this way, any time we rise in this chamber to say that we do not want to be vetoed, this argument will be made.
This bill, as important as it may be, is not the most important one that could come before us. Far more important than the passage or delaying of this bill at this time is the need for Parliament to assert itself, and for Parliament to reject what is being done with much of the legislation that goes from this House to the other place. I would think that this is the time for Parliament to do that.


Mr. Sieven  Oiio@York East: Mr. Speaker, recently I congratulated the minister on the stand he took in connection with advertising. His was a forward-looking step, not that he had any axe to grind with the advertising industry but what he saw here was a phase of our economy which had gone haywire, where the costs and the benefits of so-called advertising just did not jibe with each other. Therefore, I was quite surprised to hear the minister support these proposed amendments.
You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that at second reading of the bill and resolution stage I said it represented a tiny step towards a cure for our corporate evils. I indicated the purpose of this type of bill was to recognize that our corporate structures have become derelict. They have not kept up with corporate structures in the United States, in Germany, or even in Japan where corporate enterprise is a fairly new thing. In fact, our corporate struc-

DEBATES	October 6, 197(1
tures have continued on their own course without any change over a period of 60 or 70 years, and in many cases instead of being a benefit to our economy they have been a hindrance to it. The purpose of this bill was to introduce some measure of reform; first, to make corporation directors more responsible, to do away with inside trading, to give more information to shareholders, and to make sure that they act for the benefit of shareholders and the economy and not just for their own benefit.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This was the purpose of the bill. The members of this House had that point in mind when examining the bill both here and in committee. The idea was a recognition of the fact that, especially in Canada, the directorships of corporations were far removed from the enterprise involved. As I pointed out to the minister some time ago, the American corporation law protects the minority investor. Most American corporations are controlled by people who make their bread and butter in that corporation. I refer to the vicepresident in charge of production, advertising and finance. Fifty-one per cent of most American companies are controlled by people who depend upon that enterprise in order to make a living.
Under the Canadian corporate enterprise one man, the president, is involved with production or the success of that company. Everyone else is using the corporate structure as a big con game. I have been involved in the stock market and corporate structure for 22 years, as have some of my best friends. I often wonder how some of my friends can earn so much money when the corporation only pays them $500 a year to be a director, and I know they only hold a directorship in six or seven companies.
I have found that there is such a thing as subscribing for shares. Mr. Jones, my good friend Joe, is busy subscribing for shares. When he subscribes for a new share he does not put any money down. He does not have to put out a nickel. All he does is put down his name. The directors and their friends subscribe for the two million shares that are to be issued. Not a nickel changes hands until the shares are issued. Who decides when the shares are to be issued? The directors!
When Joe, Jim, Ralph and all the others dispose of their rights to purchase these shares at a profit of approximately $1 each, this amounts to approximately half a million dollars profit, which is not peanuts. When
October 6, 1970


Mr. Gilbert:: Why not?


Mr. Otto:: I support the bill because it is a step, a tiny step, in the right direction. Nevertheless, I am disappointed. The minister is supporting this obvious ruse which will do away with the effectiveness of his own bill. It is a bill which we admired and which most of us supported. The minister supported it.
I am speaking because I wish to ask the minister why he accepted these amendments? What pressure has been brought to bear? I am disappointed. I have tried to point out that if these amendments are accepted the minister will not have accomplished his purpose, the revision of this Act. Instead, he shall merely have introduced some small amendments to the Corporations Act. I urge the minister to examine these amendments. By relying on his own experience in the practice of law and corporation matters he will realize that each one of these amendments is meant to do something: they are meant to destroy the bill, clause by clause. The ones that do not have that intention are insignificant.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, when the drug bill came before the House some time ago I said that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) was the shadow boxing champion of Canada. My reasons for so saying were well founded. As previously indicated, the minister's legislation with regard to drugs has had little or no effect on the prices of drugs across Canada. I also wanted to tag him with the name of shadow boxing champion of Canada because he has done little with regard to combines prevailing in Canada. He will have an opportunity in the near future to do something about bankruptcies. We have waited for a long time for amendments with regard to bankruptcies and failures. We are looking for the protection of creditors and shareholders in this field and look forward to seeing how the minister will act in connection with these
October B, 1370

matters. In Bill C-4 the minister is maintaining his title as the shadow boxing champion of Canada because of his manner of dealing with corporate affairs.
The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) set forth our position accurately and clearly when he said that Bill C-4 just does not go far enough with regard to the disclosure of certain information. This was the thrust of our remarks when the bill was discussed at second reading and when it was in committee.
After reading these amendments, we have realized that strong pressure has been exerted on the minister through the Senate with regard to the amendments which came from that House. It disappoints me that a young, bold and courageous man like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who speaks loudly and with courage on the hustings about what he intends to do about drug prices, bankruptcies and corporate affairs should, when the legislation comes before the House, fall far short of his original intentions. One can only say that there is a weakness in the minister in these particular fields. He buckles at the knees when he is required to stand up for principles.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that after I heard the speech of the hon. member for York East (Mr. O to) I thought, that he would do as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) did, disassociate himself from the Liberal party and march across the floor to join the ranks on this side.


An hon. Member:: Which ranks?


John Gilbert: October 6, 1970
Division
Provincial Service Agency Ltd., Electric Furnace Products Co. Ltd., Scotts Restaurants, Bank of Nova Scotia, Union Carbide Canada Ltd., Park Pen, Acadia Atlantic Sugar Refinery Ltd., United Steel Corporation Ltd., Allied Towers Merchants, Capital Wire Cloth Ltd., Acadia Pulp and Paper Ltd., Dominion Oxygen Co. Ltd., Domet Ltd. and National Carbon Ltd.
That is a list of the directorships the chairman holds. Can it be said he is acting impartially on behalf of the Canadian people when legislation comes before that committee? I could spend the next 15 minutes setting out the various directorships held by members of the Senate who formed the committee which studied this question. Is it any wonder that amendments coming from the Senate should be the type of amendment we have before us this afternoon?
As the hon. member for York East said, an attempt was made by the government in the first instance to deal with these trading and proxy problems in the light of the increasing sophistication of modern corporations. But by the time the legislation had moved from the House of Commons to the committee and back, and into the Senate and back, its original purpose had been defeated. I call upon the strong and free members of the Liberal party to stand up and vote against this bill. Let them pay no attention to the hon. member for York East. Even though he does speak eloquently, he has not the courage or the strength to vote against this measure. But I would expect other hon. members, more especially those from Toronto who know what happens on Bay Street and who are familiar with the corporate chicanery which prevails, to refuse to fall in and follow the weak shadow boxing champion of Canada, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: The main purpose of this bill is to continue the company, subject to the laws of Canada, with its head office in Canada. I think that this move has been long overdue. We in Manitoba are particularly pleased that this will mean a transfer of the head office of this company from London, England, to our capital city in Manitoba. I think it is significant also that this move has been made in the year 1970 when Manitobans are celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of their province. I suppose there must also be some significance in the fact that this is the three hundredth anniversary of the company itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to record that I was present for this vote.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not vote?
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.



HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 5 consideration in committee of Bill S-25 respecting Hudson's Bay Company-Mr. Bas-ford-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-25 respecting the Hudson's Bay Company. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under consideration.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
All of us who have lived in the northern areas have from time to time been very closely associated with the operations of the Hudson's Bay Company. Mention has been made in this House by hon. members to the left of the exploitative nature of the operations of the Hudson's Bay Company with regard to the native people of Canada. I must say that on some occasions I have had the opportunity to discuss these matters with officials of the company in Winnipeg and in other places. I will not spend any time in giving the lengthy history of the company, but I think we should all realize that three hundred years of continuous operation of one company is outstanding in any nation in the world.
In 1670 the company was granted a charter by King Charles II, and in that same year they attempted to establish a fort at the mouth of the Nelson River where it flows into Hudson Bay. However, in 1684 they established York factory which was their base of operations in our western regions for 275 years until that operation was closed in 1957.
At Churchill, on the west coast of Hudson Bay, the company established a fort in 1685, some five miles upstream from the mouth of the river. I believe that that operation only lasted one year. It was destroyed by fire. Then, in 1718 they re-established their operations at Churchill at the mouth of the river.
All of us living in northern areas have had differences of opinion from time to time regarding the operations of this company and their attitude toward the native peoples but, in general, I would say it has been exemplary. We only need to look at the conditions of the local Indian people living at Churchill today
October 6, 1970
8824	COMMONS DEBATES
Establishment of Canadian Corporation and compare them with the conditions of the same band of people when they were settled some 150 miles away from Churchill at a place named Duck Lake. Their only contact with the outside world was through the Hudson's Bay Company. At that time they lived a very d.fferent life from the one they are living today. The conditions in which they are living at Churchill are exceedingly discouraging as compared with the conditions in which they lived at the time when they were living on their own land and hunting and trapping off the resources of the land at Duck Lake. At that time they were under the supervision of the Hudson's Bay Company and the records of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development show that they led a very happy, enjoyable and productive life.
Coming back to the complaints which our friends to the left have voiced regarding the exploitative operations of the Hudson's Bay Company, I need only say that I hope they do not compare them with the general attitude of private enterprise because the same complaints have been made about the free traders, not those of the Hudson's Bay Company, who have been dealing with the native peoples in northern Canada. I also hope that our friends who have been criticizing the policies of the Hudson's Bay Company with regard to the Indian people will talk to the present government of Manitoba and find out about the necessity for making changes in the Manitoba government agency called the Manitoba Development Fund. Recently I approached them to try to secure some capital for an Indian person who was interested in opening up a grocery store in one of the northern reserves in competition with the Hudson's Bay Company. I was told by officials of this Manitoba government agency that they had no money to lend for a proposition of that nature. So we must realize that private enterprise did invest money in the Hudson's Bay Company.
Of course the Hudson's Bay Company received a tremendous grant of land called Rupert's Land, which, I am told, extended from Labrador to the Rockies, from the headwaters of the Red River to Chesterfield Inlet of Hudson Bay. This was a tremendous subsidy to give to any one company. However, one other fact that I think has unfortunately been overlooked by many people in Canada is that were it not for the operations of the Hudson's Bay Company, particularly in western Canada and possibly in the province of British Columbia, the territory that is now

part of Canada would undoubtedly belong to the United States.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Had it not been for the Hudson's Bay Company there would have been no "54-40 or fight." It would have been "54-40 for the States and no fight". On behalf of the people of Manitoba, I am pleased that this legislation is being passed by the House today. We Manitobans are pleased to welcome officials and the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company to our province. As one who believes in decentralization, I am only sorry they did not decide to move their head office to one of their older established points in Manitoba, the town of Churchill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Report stage of Bill No. C-196, an act respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Olson.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if I might I would like to rise on a point of order. If you would like to go ahead and present the proceedings on Bill C-196 do so, but I rise on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Would the hon. member for Crowfoot state his point of order?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is to obtain from you a clear ruling and a clear interpretation of Standing Order 75(3) which says:
The report stage of any hill reported by any standing or special committee shall not be taken into consideration prior to forty-eight hours following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
What I would like clarified is the fact that apparently the government is assuming that this bill was reported to the House on the last day the House sat before the summer recess, Friday, June 26, where in Hansard of that date at page 8619 there is a brief notation
October 6, 1970

that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was tabled.
I think there is a very interesting point developing here due to the fact that in the Standing Orders there is also a rule which suggests that any amendments to be debated on report stage must be filed 24 hours before the subject matter comes up for debate. If we are assuming that the committee report to the House of Commons is the beginning of the 48 hours then we are robbing-I say robbing in the full meaning of the word-the 24 hour period which is now available to Members of Parliament to study the bill on the Order Paper.
This bill came on the Order Paper only on Monday, yesterday. We should have 24 hours to prepare amendments. I argue that it was the original intent of the rules that the bill be on the Order Paper for 24 hours, and in that 24 hour period members could prepare amendments and submit amendments.
After the 24 hours have elapsed, if the bill is to come up 48 hours exactly after it has been placed on the Order Paper, then the bill may come before the House. But if we accept the idea of the 48 hour period as mentioned in Standing Order 75(3), then I say Members of Parliament have to be prepared the very minute a committee brings in its report on a given bill to the House, before they see a reprint of the bill with whatever amendments the committee may have made. If they want amendments to be in order for debate on report stage, they have to file them on that same day.
A very important precedent may be established through this ruling. I contend that it is not fair to the Members of Parliament who sit on the backbenches of any political party that they have to pick up Votes and Proceedings for Friday, June 26, which is not even printed yet. On Friday, June 26 the chairman of the committee, or in this case the deputy chairman, brought in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. But Votes and Proceedings for June 26 was not printed on June 26. It was printed only on June 27, and it has all the listed amendments. However, the listed amendments are not in their proper place in the bill.
So, we are saying that the 48 hour period mentioned in the rules begins with the chairman bringing in the report, and we are establishing a very interesting precedent. We are also establishing another interesting precedent in the fact that if a government really wanted to hurry things up it might be better
Canada Grain Act
to adjourn for a week and come back, because in that intervening period the 48 hours are used up to some extent and members are robbed of their 24 hour period for filing amendments. By coincidence one could argue that that is exactly what happened in this case. If the government wished, it could say that the 24 hour period disappeared in the summer holidays, and that amendments had to be filed on Monday or even before Monday. If this precedent is established, it represents one more erosion of the free expression of thought which must always be available in the House of Commons.
If free expression of thought is not available in the House of Commons, then I say to parliamentarians that they have only themselves to blame for disruptions in the street. Such will happen if you do not give full vent and full opportunity for the expressions of thought by elected representatives in this place. A very important precedent is being established here, and I could not let it go without expressing due warning and concern to the Speaker and to all members of the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has brought up an important procedural question and I think it will be of value to have the guidance of your ruling on this point. As to the substance of the matter I think the hon. member, if I understood him correctly, said that Votes and Proceedings for June 26 are not yet available.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not on the 26th.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not on that date.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It certainly was available on June 27.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where were we then? Where was the House of Commons.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Votes and Proceedings containing the committee amendments, published on June 27, has been available to the hon. member in his office for a period of approximately three months, and so I contend that the hon. member has had a full opportunity to consider and reflect on the committee's work. However, that is not really his contention in this particular case. His contention is a narrower one on the interpretation of the rules.
As a matter of fact I think we have to agree that by the practice of the House over

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
the years 48 hours has not meant 48 hours, just as 24 hours has not meant 24 hours.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It certainly has.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. member, who may have something more to say, will let me continue. In other words, it has been long established by precedent-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Five o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, I point out to the hon. member that it has been established by precedent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not stop the clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry but I th:nk this is a serious and important point. I hope that the hon. member will participate in the discussion on it, and not prevent me from speaking on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it is five o'clock and perhaps we might go on to private members' business. At the same time a very interest'ng point of order has been raised by an hon. member.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There may be agreement on the part of hon. members to hear comments of those interested in enlightening the Chair at this point. I might say, in view of the intervention of the hon. member for Crowfoot yesterday, I have given the point a very serious thought in the meantime. I certainly have no intention of making a decision until such time as I have heard the views of very learned and experienced members of this House on such matters. If there is agreement, perhaps we might exhaust the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot and then go on with the private members hour. Is this agreed?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before it is agreed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have always been a defender of the private members hour and the right of the individual to make full use of the private members hour. Realizing that we have all evening to iron out this legal and technical problem, I am not particularly anxious to tread on private members who may have a subject for debate in this period. I would hate to use their last private members hour to debate a rules

question which should be considered during House of Commons time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could put a question to the hon. member. This has been called as the next item for the business of the House. The Chair would have a better opportunity over the dinner break to study the various points made. It seems a simple logical suggestion and a courtesy to the Chair to put the arguments now so His Honour can consider them and rule on them at eight o'clock. If the hon. member says he will not permit it-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It depends on the private members.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could ask whether I could have the indulgence of the House to finish my remarks, which I assure Your Honour will be very brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder if I could make a suggestion. I may have to use my most appealing voice after what I have heard recently. I wonder if we could proceed with this question of the point of order raised by the member for Crowfoot and get it settled. Could we not also face the fact that doing this will cut into the private members hour and perchance the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) may just as soon let his bill go and take it up on some other occasion? After all, there is a social event most members are going to during the supper hour. Maybe we will finish this point by half past five at which time we could call it six o'clock.


Mr. Thompson:: The hon. member who has just spoken seems to have lost his concern for the rights of the private members of this House. We very rarely get an opportunity to speak. I have been waiting exactly 12 months to bring this bill before the House. It seems we should not take this last opportunity-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not think there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The way things are going now it appears we will be spending the whole hour deciding whether we should take any part of the hour for the procedural matter, five minutes of this very important hour having elapsed already. The hon. member for Red Deer being obviously anxious to get on with the presentation of the matter, we might go on to private members business and hear further on the point of order at eight o'clock.
October 6, 1970

It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Robert Norman Thompson: that Bill C-40, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Before speaking to the subject matter of Bill C-40, Mr. Speaker, I have a minor complaint I would like to bring to the attention of Your Honour. I did not realize that I did not have my copy of Bill C-40 in the House. Our copies have been removed due to the summer recess and the fact that we are only sitting for a few days. In the few minutes before five o'clock I desperately tried to get a copy of Bill C-40. I am informed that distribution have none and there are none in the House. While at this late stage of this session such a thing could well be an oversight on the part of distribution, it seems that copies of the bill ought to be available.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might assist the hon. member by letting him have the Chair's copy of the bill.


Robert Norman Thompson: I really was not concerned about Your Honour having a copy of the bill. I was concerned about the people on the other side who need to read this bill. I was hoping they might at least study it while I am speaking. I do not think many of them have taken tune to read it. It was really of my concern for them that I was speaking, but I do appreciate Your Honour's generosity.
For at least eight years, Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to bring before this House the need for an ombudsman, a parliamentary commissioner, a man who can be concerned with the rights of the private citizen, particularly as they relate to the growing power and ever-increasing dominance of the public ser-
22478-68J
Financial Administration Act vice in the normal life and living of the individual Canadian.
Bill C-40 is a little at variance with previous bills I have presented because with this bill the auditor general would have added to his responsibilities, his terms of reference, that of parliamentary commissioner for administration. This does not require the expenditure of any new moneys. It does not require the setting up of a new office. It would merely expand the work which the auditor general already does.
In the month of December, 1964, the auditor general appeared before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections at which time the committee was concerning itself with the study of a bill which I had the privilege to sponsor. This Bill would have established formally an office of parliamentary commissioner. It is interesting to note that committee gave unanimous support to that bill, passed it, and referred it back to the House of Commons. A few months later in the Speech from the Throne, as the policy of the government of the day, we were assured that an ombudsman would be appointed, during the current year. However, nothing came of it. Neither did a similar promise in the Speech from the Throne which followed the next year.
In those hearings of the committee, the auditor general explained that he spent a great deal of his time acting as ombudsman on matters relating to taxes and financial administration of the country as they reflected down to the individual citizen. At the time he said that he received at least two or three letters a week with regard to this. He usually conferred with the deputy minister of the department involved, basically the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue. He said it was gratifying to know that many of these complaints had come to him, not because he asked for them, but because of the nature of his office, and that he was able to provide a satisfactory answer.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It was through these hearings and as a result of the government's failure to act on its promises that the idea of administrative ombudsman and this bill was bom. Basically, the Auditor General would act as parliamentary commissioner. In that capacity it would "be his duty to investigate the administration, by a power or authority or officer of such power or authority, of any law of Canada whereby any person is aggrieved or, in the opinion of the commissioner, may be

October 6, 1970

Financial Administration Act aggrieved." It is interesting to note that tinder this bill 1.75A(2) the only cases to be submitted to the Auditor General, in this capacity, would be those referred to him by Members of Parliament.
A great deal has been said about our 264 Members of Parliament actually serving as 264 ombudsmen. We cannot challenge that statement, because a good part of our time as M.P.'s is spent doing this type of work, and it is our responsibility to undertake it. I think it strengthens democracy in the eyes of the public if we carry out such functions. However, what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that very often problems come to our attention which, under the terms of reference and the authority we can muster, we cannot deal with, even though we wish to make sure that the citizen concerned receives justice in his complaint. We do not have the power of inquiry; we do not have the facilities for research and investigation that an ombudsman would have or that the Auditor General has. It is important therefore, in my opinion, that there be this extension of the work which we admit is our responsibility. I believe it can only be satisfactorily carried out by the establishment of a formal office such as we are speaking about.
There are other points in the bill I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. There are one or two matters that are perhaps of prime importance. One of those is this: the auditor, acting as commissioner or as parliamentary commissioner, if you will, "before investigating a grievance shall inform the power or authority or officer of such power or authority administering the law of Canada whereby any person is aggrieved or, in his opinion, may be aggrieved, of his intention to investigate". Thus, this officer acting as ombudsman would be working with the various departments that relate to administration matters. His function would be limited but it would strengthen, in my opinion, not only the work of the department concerned but also the confidence which the public has and must have in its administration. That is vitally necessary if democracy is to be effective. Evidence submitted by the Public Accounts Committee and conta'ned within the reports of the Aud'tor General shows that there have been many mistakes and non-productive payments. The best known example of these is probably the matter of the Bonaventure, so far as a waste of money is concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: If mistakes have been made in the administration as that relates to the spending of the taxpayer's dollar, surely they have been made in defence, public works or other departments of government. How much more likely is it, therefore, that there are many cases of grievance that affect the very lives and rights of Canadian citizens.
The Auditor General has proved his worth over and over again; he has even embarrassed the government in recent years. He has proved the effectiveness of his office. On the basis of existing evidence it seems to me that the office of ombudsman is necessary for the individual Canadian citizen. This bill constitutes the simplest way of bringing this about. The establishment of this office would be the simplest way of correcting administrative errors and mistaken judgments. The ombudsman is equally important for the individual citizen.
I am going to mention two cases which have come to my attention in the last few months. Both cases involve senior citizens who thought they had no redress and whose difficulties seemed insoluble. One case concerned a man who, through a mistake in submitting his income tax in 1969, was assessed $157.17 more tax than he had paid. This man is a senior citizen and not in very good health. When he received the communication from the tax department telling him that failure to reply or respond to its notice within 15 days would result in legal action without further notice, he panicked. He envisioned himself being taken to jail and immediately went out to seek some friend or bank or person from whom he could borrow this money that he was being asked to pay. He did not question in his mind whether he could successfully fight the department. He knew of no way he could appeal. I happened to investigate the case. I learned that he did not have the money to even repay the loan. In going over his income tax return I realized there must have been an error. Mistakes have occurred before now. Perhaps I will be able to correct this mistake. The matter is being investigated at the present time. The point is that if there had been an ombudsman, perhaps the tax officials would have looked over the man's case more carefully. Perhaps the official writing the letter would have been a little more careful or more concerned about the matter.
Another example concerns a man who is 68 years of age. He has been unable to establish his proof of birth. It so happens that he had a stroke about five years ago and his memory
October 6, 1970

has almost gone. He can remember his name; he knows where he was born; he is a new Canadian and knows the year he came to Canada but does not remember the year he took out his naturalization papers. He doesn't remember what has happened during the past several years and does not have any documentation to show where he was born, or that he is a citizen. He can recall the country in which he was born but not the town or date. For three years this man has been given the run-around by the officials who are supposed to authorize a man's eligibility for a pension. He has spent $50, I think, in having census searches undertaken with the hope that he may be able to find a record of his name. This was done because officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare insisted on it. He even received a letter which I recall and which reads in part something like this: "Obviously, you do not exist." Something is wrong when an employee in a government service makes a statement like that.
The man's problem has been straightened out now and it turned out that the answer was a simple one. I was able to find out that this man had served for a number of years in the armed forces and of course the armed forces kept his records. Nevertheless, the man has lost his pension for three years. He needs it and cannot collect it retroactively. The fact that this happened illustrates that there have been errors. This man has had to go through much merely to prove that he was born.
I have used these illustrations purposely. Perhaps they represent situations that Members of Parliament can successfully find the answer to. Nevertheless, they indicate that very often an individual's rights can be abrogated without there being any redress. It seems to me that it is our responsibility to correct situations like this in Canada which may exist on a larger scale than we suspect. A simple and effective way of dealing with them would be by extending the authority and terms of reference of the Auditor General in order to allow him to act as an ombudsman with respect to administrative matters.
May I mention that Great Britain has taken a step which illustrates the legitimacy of my argument. The man who was appointed Britain's first ombudsman was appointed to investigate grievances against government departments. The man appointed in 1966 to this office was the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Sir Edmund Compton. His title is Parliamentary Commissioner. It does not matter what the title of the office is, but I do believe we ought to expand the terms of reference of
Financial Administration Act the Auditor General so that he can carry out a most important service to the public which is not now being provided.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This bill extends the terms of reference of the functions of the Auditor General to include that of ombudsman, which is the very thing the British ombudsman actually is. I would remind hon. members that the famous Glassco report of 1963, which we have talked about ever since strongly recommended there should be an ombudsman to hear the grievances of the public and attempt to remedy them. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has told us in reply to questions that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could serve as ombudsman. I know-and the minister knows as well, because he is a friend of mine-that as Minister of Justice we cannot serve as a parliamentary commissioner or as a defender of civil rights as far as the government is concerned. In fact, I am sure the bureaucratic resistance to the ombudsman idea does not come from the Minister of Justice. I do not think it comes from the Prime Minister, either. Rather it comes from those who make up the multifarious boards, tribunals, councils and agencies which largely create the laws they administer and do not want an ombudsman checking up on them. I believe this is the influence which causes the opposition in this House, on the government side.
It is about time we put the rights of Canadian citizens above those who are supposed to serve the Canadian public as far as the civil service is concerned. Time does not permit me to elaborate on this battle with the bureaucracy which continues. With respect to our Canadian Civil Service I believe it is one of the most effective and efficient in the word, but this is an age of big government, an age when the government and its agencies increasingly take over responsibilities which were formerly regarded as being the normal responsibilities of individual Canadians.
One of the historic men as far as the idea of the ombudsman is concerned is Sir Guy Powles who is the ombudsman for New Zealand. He has served in this office in an outstanding way and he is regarded with respect by government officials in his own country and by all those who know what his office means, as well as by the ombudsman who have been appointed in various countries and states since. Over and over again when he appeared before our committee in 1964 he insisted that the little man needed the services of an ombudsman. His argument ought
October 6, 1970

Financial Administration Act to be convincing enough. Great progress has also been made in the establishment of the ombudsman office in many areas of the world. The ombudsman idea began in Sweden. The office has been instituted in Denmark, in Norway, in the United Kingdom, in New Zealand and in many other countries and states as well. We now have an ombudsman in Quebec. I believe the worth of the office has already been substantiated. There are also ombudsmen in Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba, and bills to establish similar offices are before the legislatures of other provinces. The office also exists in Hawaii as well as in several other states of the United States. It is a very interesting fact that on at least 25 large university campuses there are campus ombudsman. I could list the names of these universities if I had time. Where universities have taken the lead in this direction a very beneficial effect has resulted in the morale of the student population. I could mention other areas in which an ombudsman or an official or agency with similar functions have been established. There is the procurator of justice in the Soviet Union, and the presidential complaints committee in the Philippines; in Japan there is the bureau of civil liberties with commissioners in every precinct and district.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member may continue his presentation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much. I will close with a sentence or two. Even in the United States military, which is plagued with the problem of draft-dodgers and deserters, the Inspector General of the United States army performs a similar duty to that of the military ombudsman in Sweden.
Finally, the Auditor General does now carry a parliamentary responsibility in Canada in relation strictly to financial matters, and his office could be easily expanded to include this office. The rapid expansion of the civil service and the extension of administrative authority demands a means of protection for the individual. Such protection of civil liberties has not kept pace with the growth of bureaucracy. I commend this bill to the favourable attention of the House. I believe that though it is a very small step it


is a very vital step. Hon. members are being asked to extend the functions and terms of reference of the auditor general to include the normal duties associated with the office of ombudsman as they relate to administrative matters.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 4, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-Films; the hon. member for Brandon Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)- Indian Affairs; the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle)-Energy, Mines and Resources.
The House will now pursue its study of Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Thompson that Bill C-40 to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the subject matters which came to me in my former responsibility as President of the Privy Council in view of the fact that I shared with the Minister of Justice the responsibility for considering and advising the government on not so much the narrow question of the ombudsman but, really, the process for the review of administrative action which included among other things within my own responsibility, the evolving procedure for examining statutory instruments upon which we shall be having a bill and also a motion for a change in the stand-
October 6, 1970

ing orders in the next session of Parliament, the consideration of such institutions established in other countries as citizen's advice bureaux, the consideration on the part of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, of the review of federal administrative action in existing tribunals, for example, his reconstruction of the tax appeal board provided for in the tax review board appeal measure which was before the House during the current session and upon which we hope to have further discussion and action in the forthcoming session, and his substantial recasting of the federal court system so as to provide more effective procedures through the regular courts for reviewing administrative action-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the absence of my colleague I have the pleasure of speaking on this question as it relates to my own responsibilities or rather to those of the President of the Privy Council and I shall also be so bold as to say one or two things which may relate to his responsibilities as Minister of Justice.
It does seem to me that notwithstanding the British example the role of the auditor general is not really compatible with the role of an ombudsman which we are discussing. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has said, the responsibility of the auditor general is a financial one. I was a member of the committee at the time to which he referred. I was then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I was a member of the committee at the time Dr. Donald Rowat, Sir Guy Powles and Mr. Henderson, the Auditor General, appeared before the committee. The Auditor General was called, not so much to give evidence with regard to his role as ombudsman as much as to give evidence as an appointee of Parliament and as to the structure of an institution which, by analogy, might enable the committee to make recommendations as to the future role of ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner.
One thing I would say to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is that he is persistent in this regard. He and I were both members in 1962, which was when he made his first initiative. I am sure that one of the first points of order he must have argued was the procedural status of a bill which he put forward in that year as a member of the opposition. In this regard he has also had
Financial Administration Act some difficulties with the rules, particularly the rule against imposing a charge upon the Crown. However, in regard to this bill I would have to congratulate the hon. member on his having finally found a way to put the measure before Parliament. It is an important question that he has put before Parliament and it is useful that we discuss it.
The greatest problem at which he is reaching in his bill and which the other measures advanced by my colleague have been reaching by the change in structure of the courts system, the establishment of a House committee on statutory instruments or the establishment of citizen's advice bureaux throughout Canada is the review of administrative act.on. There is a vast volume of problems in this regard which do not relate to matters financial or even to the substance of the law, which may not be in doubt. They relate to the manner in which the administration is carried out, for example the manner in which a particular federal official may carry out his duties. Then there is the question of the failure on the part of any given official who represents one point of view, namely, the government's, to provide an opportunity to the individuals with whom he is dealing to be heard; in other words, the failure to hear both sides of the question. I agree with the hon. member's assessment of federal public servants in this regard. It is not a question of dishonesty or ignorance or malice but rather of excess of zeal on the part of public servants in the performance of their duties.
With regard to the situation presented by the hon. member, although I recognize the problem his constituent had, there is a remedy for it. There is a tax appeal board, which in my view-I say this as a lawyer- has become too much the province of lawyers. This is why we are now putting forward a tax review board which could deal with such situations.


Robert Norman Thompson: How could the old man go to the appeal board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is why I was pointing out that we are proposing to restructure the board along more humane lines, making it possible, for example, for the hon. member himself to appear before the board with and on behalf of the gentleman in question. The second example-a common one, as all Members of Parliament know-is the kind of situation in which the advice of an ombudsman is not required so much as the institution of a citizen's advice bureau.
October 6, 1970

Financial Administration Act During the Christmas recess I had the opportunity to be in the United Kingdom and while there met with the officials of a private nonprofit organization responsible for citizen's advice bureaux, bureaux that are funded in part from public funds. I met the administrators, visited a number of these bureaux and saw them in action. It would seem to me that this might be the sort of institution that could better deal with the kind of problem referred to by the hon. member.
Owing to the very uniqueness of the word, I suppose, "ombudsman" has become a kind of magic phrase which has caught the fancy of ed torial writers. As the hon. member pointed out, since he first started his efforts in 1962 the expression has very much caught the attention of legislators around the world. It was about that time that New Zealand was considering establishing an ombudsman. As the hon. member has pointed out, the United Kingdom has an institution of this kind, as well as certain provinces, including his own, New Brunswick and others.
As I have said, we in this House made a very extensive study in the middle 1960's during which the hon. member and I examined the various merits of such an institution. I have already cited the example of New Zealand and I think it is important to point out that both Denmark and Sweden have ombudsmen. I might add West Germany, where I believe the institution is still in existence though it confines its functional responsibilities to questions involving military service. Putting aside the institution in the United Kingdom for a moment-I will deal with that later-let me illustrate the chief characteristics of those communities in which the establishment of ombudsmen has been such a success. Firstly, the community has been, in relative terms, small in population; that is to say, a population of up to approximately eight million. If someone rushes to point to the example of West Germany, may I remind him that their institution does not concern itself with the full panoply of government but, rather, deals solely with questions arising under the German military.
In addition to small population there is a relatively homogeneous population; that is to say, communities where there have not been substantial differences in language and where there is no substantial ethnic difference. Further, the volume of work to be handled by the ombudsman was such that it could be effectively dealt with by one person. The point was particularly emphasized to us, both

in the manner of the description of his function by Sir Guy Powles and in the conclusion that one could draw from his experience, that the far most effective weapon which an ombudsman-particularly the one I met, Sir Guy Powles-could bring to his job was not the right to report to Parliament or to take any kind of legal proceedings in regard to administration, but was the impact of his own personality in dealing with the particular administrator involved. Therefore, there is a necessary limit to the number of cases with which an ombudsman can deal on this personal sort of basis.
One of the hesitations that I have about such an institution-a hesitation that can be overcome by various expedients-is the rather different nature of Canada compared with the relatively small, unitary, homogeneous state in which ombudsmen have been really successful. I put aside the case of the United Kingdom, even though it is a unitary state, because I require that their case be further proven. Given the great geographical expanse of Canada and our federal form of government, we have a population of roughly 22 million now, compared with eight to nine million in Sweden, though that figure is subject to correction. We also have ethnic and linguistic differences. Consequently, I do not believe that a single ombudsman could effectively discharge the responsibilities that one would put upon him. Therefore, one would have to think in terms of a panel of ombudsmen, and at that point one approaches the creation of something akin to the conseil d'etat of France, which has a panel rather than a single individual. This is not really an ombudsman but, rather, a different type of institution. I shall have more to say about the conseil d'etat in a moment.
Different solutions have been adopted throughout the western world for dealing with the problem of excess of zeal on the part of administrators. The ombudsman is one of those institutions which is of Baltic origin and has become recognized as one solution. Then, of course, there is the parliamentary system. In the United States there was passed the Administrative Procedure Act. In France, with various adaptations, particularly since the Napoleonic period, there has been the institution of the conseil d'etat.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If I may bring to the debate a certain national bias in favour of one particular institution, I suggest that in terms of the protection of civil liberties probably the partliamentary
October 6, 1970	COMMONS
system has been the most effective weapon. The question period is part of the political process that focuses attention upon individual problems. The grievance procedures provide a number of ways under the rules both of this Parliament and that of the United Kingdom, of an opportunity for debate and examination of questions of supply. This provides an opportunity for bringing clear to the public eye individual grievances. Because this opportunity is there the administration is made conscious of the fact that arbitrary action can in due course be subject to some kind of review in Parliament. The parliamentary system has provided excellent protection through that opportunity for review and examination, and it has been entirely through a political rather than a legal process. I think if one looks across the full range, going back several centuries, one can claim that our own system has had a very considerable measure of success.
The fact that we have this bill before us today, the fact that the United Kingdom has a parliamentary commissioner, and the fact that a number of Canadian provinces, which also have the parliamentary system, have created an office which is comparable to that of an ombudsman, is recognition that there is a limitation in our parliamentary system and that the system has not been fully capable of satisfying the requirements. I think this limitation would have to be recognized, as the hon. member has done. Even if we had the greater facilities for individual Members of Parliament to which he referred, for example, the facility of a secretary and a constituency office where during a member's absence while in Ottawa his constituents would have the right to recourse to him by message being passed on, and what is often more important a facility at this end-because as hon. members know, it is all very well to talk of a problem during a 15 minute interview with a constituent but this may involve up to two hours telephoning trying to track it down with the public service-there is a limit on what 264 members can do. I take it that for this reason other jurisdictions have adopted the ombudsman system as an institution. The hon. member has put in his bill a connecting link so as to establish and make clear the primary responsibility of Parliament with regard to the institution and the fact that the parliamentarian has to be the initiator of action rather than the parliamentary commissioner.
Having described what I regard as one of the most satisfactory systems, let me s*y a
DEBATES	8833
Financial Administration Act few words about what I think is one of the least satisfactory systems, that is, the Administrative Procedure Act of the United States. Even with my professional bias I can say this has been a cardinal example of how badly things can be done from time to time by lawyers. I think one would have to say, in defence of the members of my profession, that the United States Administrative Procedure Act arose not so much through a professional bias of that kind, but-I think I am correct in saying this-out of a necessity to meet the requirements of the United States constitution and the ultimate right under the Bill of Rights to have recourse to the courts system. I suggest that the APA, as it is known, makes this case of administrative procedures the least satisfactory one due to the nature of formal litigation which is expensive and time consuming. It has had the effect of a denial of the process of administrative review through the courts. There has to be a big question, there have to be funds behind the individual and he must have time if he is to obtain ultimate and effective recourse under the Administrative Procedures Act.
We too are to a degree establishing that kind of system in Canada and we are to a degree reconstituting our own court procedures so as to provide better procedural access and a better basis for administrative law than has existed in the past. There is, no doubt, the kind of situation which an administrative system can handle with the necessity of a rather formal proceeding. What is required is a less legalized proceeding which an individual can follow such as, for example, that which an ombudsman is designed to handle. This brings me to the institution for which 1 have particular admiration-the institution in France to which I referred earlier, the conseil d'etat. As the parliamentary system and common law has been evolved in Anglophone countries, so the conseil d'etat is a unique institution which has evolved from an entirely different institution. The French started off as we did, with an institution of one kind, but procedure has caused it to be adapted in another way.
I had the opportunity, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, of visiting the conseil d'etat in Paris and of talking to the secretary of that august body. I had an opportunity of observing the scale and nature of the problems with which they deal. I must say that that institution as such has great appeal to me. It seems to me it is one of particular success in France since it was
October 6, 1970

Financial Administration Act established. During the period of the Algerian war it gained the enviable reputation of being the protector of individual rights. The conseil d'etat also has been particularly effective in areas in which, for example, the courts system has often failed, in providing quick action at a very limited cost to particular applicants. The value of the conseil d'etat as opposed to the ombudsman is that it is a fairly substantial body. It is, incidentally, a body drawn from the upper cream of the French public service. The relationship between the adjudication of problems and the administration is indicated in a sense by the fact that a conseiller d'etat may be on leave of absence working with a particular department or agency of the French public service. They may work back and forth between them.
The essential thing involved in an effective administrative procedure is, first, humanity and fairness to the individual involved and willingness to listen to the problem. But probably most important of all, an institution like the conseil d'etat must have the full respect of the administrators, just as the administrators in our country have full respect for the courts, just as they have for Parliament. In France one of the great secrets of success of the conseil d'etat has been the respect in which it has been held.
I think we should always hesitate to adapt to our own country an institution of another state. These are often very delicate institutions founded in the national psychology of circumstance and individual need.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would allow me to make a few more remarks. I will undertake to desist after that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the
House agreeable to giving the minister an extension of time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was making the point that I think we have to be careful in adapting particular institutions to our own body politic without a very full understanding of the underlying mentality of the body politic from which they are adapted. They have to be fully understood, and understood in a much deeper sense than just knowing the rules involved. With that view, I think it is

important that we should reflect deeply upon the institution of an ombudsman as it might apply in Canada as a federal state of broad expanse which has by definition and by rule a non-homogenous population. Secondly, we should think very hard and long about the adaptation of an institution here, particularly when thinking in terms of the kind of institution that might develop.
I agree, as I know my colleague would agree, that it is important to try to evolve a good means of administrative procedure and to try within the framework of our courts and parliamentary systems to deal with these problems. I think this debate has provided a useful opportunity to put some of these problems forward and I hope we will be able to resolve them in this Parliament.


Mr. Alasiair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for his persistence and for the thoughts which inspired his Bill C-40. In a very few m nutes I have been able to familiarize myself with some of the background of this bill. I have been able to review, for instance, Bill C-13 and some of the debate which took place earlier this year.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
On that occasion it seemed to me there was a very full debate on some of the key issues, many of which have been touched upon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). I was touched by some of the examples given by the hon. member for Red Deer. I can well imagine the frustration of the individual who was seeking proof of his birth. The suggestion which came back via the bureaucracy, or the computer, that he did not exist and could not be alive reminds me of the story of the individual who upon reading in the newspaper of his untimely death, when speaking to friends said, "The news of my demise has been greatly exaggerated".
I think we all feel the kind of frustration the hon. member for Red Deer articulated this evening and which indeed, as I have indicated, inspired his bill. I refer to the frustration of the individual in dealing with the government. Let us face the fact that big government will get bigger. As our society becomes more complex and more sophisticated, the problem of remoteness and alienation which exists between the individual and the institutions of this government will grow; it will not become less.
October 6, 1970

The Minister of National Defence touched upon some of the ways in which we might bring an immediacy to government and to the people. In particular he referred to the possibility of constituency offices and their use. If I have time at the end of my remarks I shall comment on that suggestion. At this time, however, there are three points I should like to make to the hon. member for Red Deer. I accept the proposition of the shrinking individual relative to the growing government. But I seriously question whether the ombudsman system-and that, after all, is what we are talking about-would work at the federal level. I seriously question whether the Auditor General is the appropriate person, even in the event it should be found possible that an ombudsman system might work at the federal level. I think the issue here is that of the independence of the Auditor General vis-a-vis Parliament and Members of Parliament.
I question the timing of this bill. During May and June of this year the Public Accounts Committee spent many hours dealing with the role and status of the Auditor General. In the report that was tabled before Parliament on June 26, one of the recommendations was that the duties of the Auditor General of Canada as spelled out in the present legislation are satisfactory. In its report No. 34, the Public Accounts Committee dealt in some detail with the recommendations of the Auditor General's department. This was done after many meetings, many of which were attended by the Auditor General himself who participated as a witness. At the present time the government of Canada is considering the recommendations of this committee. For that reason I think it would be inappropriate for the House at this time to refer this bill for further study in committee.
Let me say a word or two about the federal-provincial aspect of an ombudsman's function. The Minister of National Defence has already indicated the difficulties and dangers of embracing an institution suited to other jurisdictions and adopting it with little or no change to our jurisdiction. He pointed out in his remarks, as did the hon. member for Red Deer, that four provinces, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick have adopted the ombudsman system. Surely it is far easier to adopt in a limited jurisdiction where the geography lends itself to the type of contact that is essential between the individual and the ombudsman. The hon. member for Red Deer in his remarks referred to universities and the fact that some of our universities had
Abduction of British Commissioner adopted the ombudsman system. Here again I suggest the geographical and homogeneous nature of a constituency lends itself to this arrangement.
One or two items in the hon. member's bill worry me from the point of view of the independence of the Auditor General. This is my second point. For instance, it would appear that any aggrieved party could initiate action provided he or she obtained the concurrence of a Member of Parliament who would then process the grievance. It is made clear that the commissioner, the ombudsman, shall act only at the instance of a member of the House of Commons, as the elective, representative body in Parliament, and on complaint of personal injustice suffered by a complainant. This, surely, raises real questions about the independence of the Auditor General, because the bill provides that the Auditor General could refuse to process or investigate a grievance. Surely no stretch of the imagination is required to visualize the situation he would be in if he should refuse to do so, having first accepted the task at the instance of a Member of Parliament.
The Auditor General could be subject to all sorts of party or individual political pressure, which I think would spoil the essential independence of his office. Nor does the bill make clear whether it would be at the instance of an individual or of Parliament, that is, at the instance of an individual acting separately or Parliament acting collectively.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired and I do now leave the chair, to resume the same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the Secretary of State for External
October 6, 1970

Abduction of British Commissioner Affairs (Mr. Sharp) seeks leave of the House to revert to motions. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I announced to the House the news of the kidnapping of James Cross, senior British Trade Commissioner in Montreal. Hon. members asked to be kept informed of developments in this case. I now have a further statement to make.
Shortly after I spoke yesterday, I was given a summary of the document containing the terms demanded by Mr. Cross's captors for his safe release. The document itself is in the form of a statement or communique. It is not addressed directly either to the federal government or to the Quebec government, nor was it delivered directly. The communique confirms that Mr. Cross is in the hands of the Front de Liberation de Quebec and sets seven conditions for his safe release. These conditions can be summarized as follows:
1.	The police investigation is to be stopped;
2.	Wide press and television publicity is to be given to a so-called political manifesto of the FLQ;
3.	Over 20 prisoners are to be released;
4.	Facilities for their transportation by plane to Cuba or Algeria are to be arranged;
5.	The LaPalme workers are to be rehired on the terms and conditions set out by the union before the breakdown of negotiations;
6.	A ransom of $500,000 in gold is to be paid;
7.	Public disclosure is to be made about an alleged informer in the FLQ.
The communique demands that these conditions be met within 48 hours from the time of the issuing of the communique. Clearly, these are wholly unreasonable demands and their authors could not have expected them to be accepted. I need hardly say that this set of demands will not be met. I continue, however, to hope that some basis can be found for Mr. Cross's safe return. Indeed, I hope the abductors will find a way to establish communication to achieve this. All the authorities concerned are dealing with this case on the basis that we have the double responsibility to do our best to safeguard Mr. Cross and at the same time to preserve the rule of law in our country. The House can be sure that everything possible is being done. I trust that hon. members will not ask me to go into this delicate matter further at this moment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration on the order:
Report stage of Bill No. C-196, an act respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Olson.
Mr. Speaker:: I believe that when the House rose at six o'clock the Minister of National Defence had the floor on a point of order which had been raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. The Chair would like to know whether there are additional submissions to be made for the guidance of the Chair in this respect.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who was replying to the points raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), may I at least try to give my opinion which perhaps will be helpful to you in considering the point of order raised by the hon. member.
The hon. member referred to Standing Order 75. He maintained that 48 hours notice was required before a report from a standing committee could be considered by the House. We have no argument with that point, but we do contend that since this report was made to the House and recorded in Votes and Proceedings of June 26, that requirement has in fact been met in all respects: the time that has elapsed is in fact three months.
We do not contest the point argued by the hon. member, that there may be some provisions within that report which have amended the bill in a major way, but we are also aware that members of the House, through the mailing facilities and the distribution office, have in fact received a copy of all the amendments that the committee considered and recommended to the House in the report. If my information is correct, that document was in fact available to all members in July. Indeed, the bill was reprinted some time in July and was made available to hon. members. It seems to me that it is not valid to argue that in view of the fact that the House was in recess hon. members were not in receipt of or aware of the mail that was sent to their offices during the period of recess.
October 6, 1970

The hon. member also argued the principle of the 24 hours notice. I think it is a very important principle. I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the 24 hours rule, which appears many times in the Standing Orders, has already been established. It is one that has been used by the government on many occasions. It has also been used by the opposition. It states that any notice of an amendment or other business that is provided for under all of the Standing Orders that is filed with the table by six o'clock on the day preceding the proceedings is, in fact, deemed to have been filed 24 hours in advance of that sitting.
To add weight to that argument let me say it is well known-I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) know this-that on the days when the opposition have the privilege or the right to give 24 hours notice of a motion under the rules, the 24 hours requirement is considered to be met if the text is filed with the table by six o'clock the day before the sitting. Of course, in considering the notices that have been given, the rule has been complied with as far as Bill C-196 is concerned.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that if we were to argue otherwise-and the hon. member for Crowfoot did argue otherwise-we would be chang'ng a long-established principle. For that and a number of other reasons including, in my v ew, the need to get on with this bill, I hope that the hon. member and you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that all the requirements that are long-established have indeed been met both with respect to the 48 hours notice and the 24 hours notice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has already made his argument on the point of order, if this is on the same point of order. I would hope we would not get involved in a situation wherein everyone would speak two or three times on the same point of order. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member; I recognize it is an important matter. If he wants to speak briefly, to add to the points he has made, the Chair has no objection to hearing him, with the agreement and consent of the House. Then perhaps we should hear other contributors and I will try to give the ruling in due course.
Canada Grain Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Speaker, with regard to hearing new thoughts and receiving new guidance with respect to the ruling. I appreciate the position you are in, and I do not want to take the place of any member who may want to speak on this point of order. But you will bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the fact that when instigating the po.nt of order I rose somewhat hesitantly to suggest that this is a precedent and requires clarificat.on of the rules under which we are now operating. Therefore, I did not make all my argument respecting clarification of the rules of the House but I made enough to entice other hon. members to contribute to the debate.
There are further suggestions that you, sir, and the House should hear respecting a full understanding of the rules. But before speaking on the rules I wish to say that after hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) make his statement I felt rather small, as a member of the House, and felt that my problems were rather small in light of the problems confronting the government-in fact, confronting Canada-in this grave situation. Having said that, I would refer to Standing Order 75(8) which reads as follows:
When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
The particular phrase to which I would direct your attention is, "when the Order of the Day for the consideration of a report stage is called." We are now at that point; we are now calling for presentation of the report stage of Bill C-196. I may have referred to Standing Order 75(5) before the supper hour, but for clarification and continuity I wish to read it now:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
So I say to you, sir, that without any shadow of a doubt 24 hours notice must be given before amendments at the report stage of a piece of legislation can be debated in the House of Commons. Standing Order 75(3) reads:
The report stage of any bill reported by any standing or special committee shall not be taken into consideration prior to forty-eight hours following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
I contend that the intent and the meaning of subsection 3 bear a direct relationship to the meaning and clarification in subsections 5 and 8 of the same Standing Order, because the stated principle is that the report stage commences 48 hours after a committee has reported, that is, 48 hours after the committee's report has been tabled and published in the Orders of the Day and not from the instant that the report is tabled in the House. Hansard for June 26, at page 6819, simply records as follows:
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).
That is all it says, but more is recorded the next day in Votes and Proceedings. You frown, Mr. Speaker, but you and everybody in the House of Commons knows that Votes and Proceedings are printed the following day, so that 24 hours have elapsed before members are given notice of what took place in a committee. I happen to be one of those fortunate members who knew full well what took place in the committee because of my active participation in the work of the committee. But there may come a day when I may not be a member of that committee, when other members may not be serving on it, and we will not know what took place.
You, sir, should gauge the precedent which will be established by your ruling. As an example I suggest it would be very wise for all committees' chairmen and vice-chairmen to present committee reports on a Friday and not on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Then we gain the advantage of a lapse of 24 hours, because in most cases the House does not sit again until the following Monday and on that Monday between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. members who may want to move amendments at the report stage must file them-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is an advantage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -or their amendments will not be considered on Tuesday if the government decides to proceed with the report stage on the Tuesday. In essence, the difference between 48 hours and 24 hours is really boiled down to four hours, the period from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. on a Monday. This is a grave difference.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We in this country are gravely concerned about the desire, will and expression of the people which is being vented in demonstrations, parades and bombings. I shudder to even mouth the words that it may be even

going as far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested tonight. It may be going that far because the freedom, desire, expression and will of the people is not being expressed in this place.
The reduction from 24 hours to four hours is duly noted on this occasion. I say to the new House Leader that it is a suppression of the free desire and free will of the citizens of this country through their elected representatives. I give that warning to the new House Leader. This is a suppression and a reduction of the free feeling and free expression which is so very important in today's society. We are knowingly, after I have clearly enunciated these words, suppressing the feeling of the people, whether that feeling is being expressed by a minority, a racial group or a group of a different colour.
We are establishing a precedent in this House of Commons. The reduction of the 48 hours notice to 24 hours is really a reduction of 24 hours to four hours. I say that with a great deal of meaning and care. I want Your Honour and the members of this House to fully appreciate what has taken place today, because hon. members will rue this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members of this House know, and I am sure that my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party will confirm this, when a fellow member of the opposition raises a point of order and feels aggrieved, if I think he is wrong I usually stay in my seat. I reserve my fighting on points of order for the other side. Accordingly, I am reluctant to get into this debate tonight because it is a member of the opposition who feels aggrieved. But in my view, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is confused in his thinking about this matter. Indeed, if his contention were accepted by Your Honour, we would have a great deal of confusion in the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, we would not. We would have a great deal of clarification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: point out first, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Crowfoot contends, in decibels that I cannot match, that we are doing something new by this procedure in deciding that 48 hours means the second sitting day after notice is given. I can certify from my experience of nearly three decades that it has been done that way for a long, long time. I suggest that as far as the 24-hour notice is concerned, despite what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. October 6, 1970

Canada Grain Act
Olson) said, we have had 24-hour notice provisions only since the last revision of the rules.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
24-hour provision, since it came into effect, has meant one day from the point at which the notice was given until the matter was debated.


Robert Simpson: How much is ten feet of flooding?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the Red River it is a lot. I think the basic point of confusion of the hon. member for Crowfoot is that he thinks that the requirement for written notice mentioned in two or three places in Standing Order 75 is the same thing as that notice appearing on the Order Paper. I invite him to face this fact, that written notice is something that a member writes out and hands to the Clerk at the table before six o'clock on any day. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not just an assertion of mine but that it is spelled out clearly in Standing Order 42. The last sentence of Standing Order 42 (1) reads:
Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., or before five o'clock p.m. on a Friday, and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
When a member has given notice in writing to the table on any day before six o'clock, or before five o'clock on Friday, then the 24 or 48 hour period counts from that day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will speak again on this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I remind the hon. member for Crowfoot that on occasion he has been the official opposition spokesman on motions at the report stage, and I believe also on the motion on an opposition day. What happens on an opposition day?


An hon. Member:: Very little.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An
opposition member files notice this afternoon and gives it to the table by six o'clock. Tomorrow it appears on the Notice Paper. Tomorrow we debate it. And nobody gets up and says, "We have not had 24 hours. We have not seen this on the Order Paper for two days; it has been on the Order Paper for only a short while." Yet Standing Order 58 (4), which covers this point, is in the same language as the wording in Standing Order 75. Standing Order 58 (4) (a) reads:
Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates.
It does not say that the notice must appear on the Order Paper 24 hours before the day it is debated. It says the written notice must be given to the Clerk at the table the day before it is debated. I submit, with respect to my hon. friend, that he is confusing these two things. The written notice required in the rules is what the member hands to the table. The appearance on the Notice Paper in the case of a 24-hour rule, or on the Order Paper in the case of a 48-hour rule, is a different thing. I already referred to Standing Order 42. In Beauchesne's fourth edition there is a citation that bears on this point. Citation 188 reads:
(1) The publication of a proposed motion, once in the Votes and Proceedings and the next day on the order paper, is sufficient to cover two days' notice under Standing Order 41.
The reason it says 41 is because Standing Order 41, when this book was written, was the order that is now Standing Order 42. It has been that way from the beginning of time. As far as the 48-hour rule is concerned, notice is given one day, it appears on Votes and Proceedings that we see the next sitting day, and the day after that it appears on the Order Paper. As a matter of fact, we debate matters under the 48-hour rule on the first day that they appear in writing on the Order Paper. I therefore ask my hon. friend not to confuse these two things, the written notice that he gives to the Clerk at the table and the appearance of it on the Order Paper.
We have in our possession now 30 or 40 amendments to Bill C-196 at the report stage. Some, perhaps most of them, are in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot. He gave the notice yesterday.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
did not?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before yesterday.


An hon. Member:: He was here all summer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: right. They were not on any previous Order Paper. Yesterday was the first sitting day since June 26. The hon. member gave notice yesterday as far as sitting days are concerned. They were not on yesterday's Order Paper.

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
The written notice was given as of yesterday, so that they are on today's Order Paper and therefore they are debatable today, as have been his previous motions at the report stage and as have been his motions on opposition days. I submit that the wording of Standing Order 75(3) is clear.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And 73(5).


Stanley Howard Knowles: was speaking of 75(3). The wording is clear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Abundantly clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing Orders 75(3) and 75(5) do not say that things have to be on the Order Paper for 24 or 48 hours. They say that there must be a 24 or 48-hour lapse of time from the point at which the notice is given to the Clerk at the table until the point at which the matter is taken up. All the Standing Orders that are relevant, all the various sections of Standing Orders 75 and 58, use that same language. In no cases does the time date from the point at which a motion has appeared on the Order Paper. The time dates from the point at which the written notice is given to the Clerk at the table.
The Clerk at the table on June 26 had notice, because it was given to him here in the House by the spokesman for the committee on that occasion, who said that Bill C-196 with amendments had been reported. As a matter of fact, I think I could make a case for the government's right to proceed with this bill yesterday. I think it would have been unfair, but the government could have done that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Emphasize those words. Will the hon. member emphasize what he is saying, sir?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
only do I think it would have been unfair- and one always hesitates to say what has gone on in the house leaders' meetings-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why would it have been unfair?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one moment. The hon. member has made two speeches.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will make a third speech, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will require unanimous consent. In the

house leaders' meeting it was agreed by the government representative that it would be unfair to proceed with this matter yesterday, and that is why it was not proceeded with. The fact of the matter is that on scores of occasions, in the years I have been here, I have filed notices on Friday and they have been on the Order Paper to be called on Monday because 48 hours had elapsed. So the practice is clear, and we should have nothing but confusion if we were to start today what the hon. member for Crowfoot asks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
suggests we are limiting freedom of speech, indulging in suppression and getting rid of democracy; we are doing something terribly serious because we are cutting 24 hours down to four.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what we are doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suppose the hon. member has the right to indulge in such nonsense. The fact of the matter is that when notice is given, and where 48 hours is required and the matter is not proceeded with until two days later, the rule is being kept; and when the rule requires that 24 hours is enough notice, after one day we have the right to proceed with the matter. The case is very clearly established, and I think we should be just getting into confusion if we went the way the hon. member for Crowfoot suggests.
In speaking about the new situation created by the report stage may I say that, like some other hon. members, I was a member of the Special Committee on Procedure that drafted the rules, and we were quite clear on what we wanted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was a member of that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was a member of it all the time, and we were quite clear on what was happening. We said that a bill would be reported and that it must not be possible for that bill to be debated for two days, so that there would be one intervening day for the opposition or any member to put down amendments. I think we erred on one point: we ought to have covered the weekend situation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: think it is a bit unfair that a bill could be
October 6, 1970

filed on Friday and called on Monday at the report stage. Yet nobody, not even the wicked government on the other side of the House, is trying to practise that unfairness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
the hon. member for Crowfoot face the fact that the government did not try to proceed with this bill yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What we are trying to bring about is some order, and I think order is better than confusion.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is in essence the same as the one which he brought to the attention of the House during routine proceedings yesterday. The hon. member's statement is reported at pages 8708 and 8709 of yesterday's Hansard. With the permission of hon. members I will quote the hon. member's statement:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been my understanding that before debate commences on a given government item it must be on the Order Paper for 48 hours. To my knowledge it was impossible for government order 82 to be on the Order Paper for 48 hours because the Standing Committee on Agriculture only submitted its findings to the House on June 26, the last sitting day before the summer recess, and no Order Paper has been published since that day. Therefore I doubt whether, without unanimous consent of the House, we can deal with this item until it has been on the Order Paper for 48 hours.
As I said, this is essentially and basically the point of order which has been raised for the consideration of the House by the hon. member for Crowfoot. This is a relatively new Standing Order, of course, and the practice in relation to Standing Order 75 has not yet been established completely. Because of this I have indicated to the House my view that the matter is one which deserves serious attention. The point has been the subject of an interesting debate this afternoon and this evening, and in light of the advice extended to the Chair I think I should at this time give a ruling.
The facts as presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot, by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), are basically not controverted.
Canada Grain Act
There is agreement on the sequence of events in relation to this matter.
The report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was tabled in the House on Friday, June 26 last, as appears in Votes and Proceedings for that date. This was the day on which Parliament recessed for the summer. As is the usual practice, distribution was made of those Votes and Proceedings the following Monday, June 29. The House met after the summer recess on Monday, October 5. Again, as is the practice, during the week before the resumption of the business of the House on October 5, the Order Paper was distributed to hon. members. That Order Paper carried as a government order the entry dealing with the report stage of Bill C-196. According to the Notice Paper appended to today's Order Paper, a number of motions standing in the name of hon. member for Crowfoot and other hon. members were received prior to 6 p.m. yesterday, October 5. Standing Order 75 deals with the report stage of public bills following their consideration in committee.
Hon. members have referred the Chair to sections 5 and 8 of Standing Order 75. Perhaps for the record I may be allowed to quote sections 3 and 5 of the relevant Standing Order. Standing Order 75(3) reads:
The report stage of any bill reported by any standing or special committee shall not be taken into consideration prior to forty-eight hours following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
Standing Order 75(5) reads as follows:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
The question for the Chair to determine is whether the requirements of the relevant Standing Order have been met. Section 3 of Standing Order 75 is clear that a committee report cannot be considered by the House until 48 hours have elapsed following the presentation of the report. How is this requirement to be interpreted?
There is another Standing Order which requires 48 hours notice. The unquestioned practice of the House has been that the 48-hour notice requirement is met when that period extends over a weekend or over two sitting days. For example, a notice tabled at six o'clock on Monday may be dealt with at two o'clock on Wednesday. Similarly, a notice filed at six o'clock on Wednesday can be dealt with by the House at eleven o'clock on Fri-

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
day. A notice filed Friday afternoon can be dealt with on Monday afternoon at two o'clock, in spite of the fact that two sitting days have not elapsed between the time of filing of the notice on Friday and the consideration thereof on Monday.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I am sorry I am using a precedent which dates back to April 14, 1913, but I thought we should go back somewhat to indicate that this has been the practice for many years now. This precedent confirms my interpretation of the Standing Order, an interpretation which was accepted before the ruling of 1913 and which has been followed since then. The ruling can be found in Beauchesne's third edition at page 827.
If the 48-hour requirement is met in the circumstances I have just outlined, it has certainly been met if the report has been filed on a Friday and the report is brought forth for consideration on the following Tuesday, even if there has been an extended recess between the two days. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that it would have been unfair and contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order to have attempted to proceed to the report stage yesterday, since in practice there would not have been the proper time in which to file amendment motions. On this basis I suggest the report stage could not have been proceeded with yesterday. In fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), this is a point which was made very clearly by him.
The point is that the motion was not put yesterday, precisely in order that the spirit of the Standing Order could be complied with. I must therefore conclude that the 48-hour requirement specified in section 3 of Standing Order 75 has been met in the present case. In like fashion, the 24-hour notice required under section 5 of Standing Order 75 is met if notice of amendments is filed at six o'clock for consideration at any time during the following day's sitting. Indeed, most of the notices filed by virtue of Standing Order 75(5) during the past and current sessions were received and considered by the House as a result of this interpretation of the Standing Order.
I personally appreciate the fact that this matter was raised. It placed the Chair in the position of having to reflect on the interpretation of the Standing Order. Perhaps the interpretation I have given is not completely to the liking of the hon. member for Crowfoot or of other hon. members, but it was difficult to
[Mr. Speaker.!
reach a contrary decision if, as I feel, the Chair is bound by precedents. If hon. members feel that the rule as I have interpreted it is not conducive to fairness, their remedy is to change the rule and it may be hon. members might wish to do that in due course. But for the moment, after due consideration and having looked at the matter with all possible objectivity, impartiality and fairness, I can reach no other decision than the one I have just communicated to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-196, respecting grain, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-196, an act respecting grain, be amended by adding to subparagraph 2(10) (a) (i) the words "trucking firms approved as public carriers under section 3 of the National Transportation Act" after the word "ships".
He said: I realize it is against the rules for an hon. member to comment on a ruling by the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and for this reason I shall refrain from doing so. However, I fully appreciate the words of wisdom and guidance you have given the House. Indeed, I raised the question to hear those words of wisdom and guidance as well as to alert the House to the dangerous error inherent in our rules. As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, I have submitted a number of amendments to this bill; I have not calculated the total number but somebody tells me it is 38.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Forty-four.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) suggests it is 44. I think that may well be the total number of amendments submitted by all hon. members. I raise this question purely for the sake of clarification. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you or your staff have considered these amendments and reached any conclusion as to whether they are in order. I am, of course, prepared to deal with my first amendment, but before I do so it would be helpful to know which amendments are in order and which are not in order. We would then have a clearer idea of the workload ahead of us during this session.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Chair to make a ruling on motions which have not yet come before the House. As he has himself pointed out, there are many motions for consideration and perhaps it would have taken more time than the Chair
October 6. 1970

and its advisers have at their disposal to have considered the acceptability of each one of them. The Chair has been under the impression that we might not reach the end of that long list by tomorrow. The thought of the Chair was that we might at least start on the first one, which is in order. The second and the third also appear to be in order. That should be enough meat to keep the House interested for the next few minutes.
If for any reason it was decided, for example, that we might sit after the normal adjournment hour tomorrow night to consider the hon. member's other amendments, we might be in a position to make a ruling as to whether they are acceptable.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would agree to our sitting tonight until his amendments have been dealt with.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the extent of the workload which is placed before the House. It was in these circumstances that I inquired whether you, Mr. Speaker, or your staff, had reached any conclusions about the acceptability of these amendments. Bearing in mind that we are establishing precedents, I thought that question might be posed this evening.
I have read the rules carefully and I see that according to the rules the mover of an amendment is given 40 minutes speaking time. The first amendment in my name is an important one because it deals with the subject of rail line abandonment. But before dealing with it I have a suggestion to make and something in the nature of a request to put forward. As we have heard, I have placed on the Order Paper something like 38 amendments to this bill, and this might well give rise to the question: Why has one particular member done this?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
What basic objection do I have to the passage of the bill? I can give my reasons each time I rise to speak to my amendments and then go on to deal with the detail of such amendments. However, what I would like to do is this. I ask permission of the House to explain my basic reasons for suggesting that the bill is badly framed and why I have placed on the Order Paper 38 amendments to a bill that comprises 114 clauses.
If the House feels that I must stick strictly to each amendment as it concerns the whole rationalization of the railways and their problems in western Canada, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the minister that I can
Canada Grain Act
spend a full 40 minutes on that subject. However, in my initial speech I should like to take a broad approach to the list of amendments. Perhaps the House would give me some guidance in this regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the hon. member ranging over a broad field, but I think that what must be borne in mind is that it is extremely important in the minds of the majority of farmers that the bill be passed so that changes in the grading system can be put into effect. Secondly, virtually all the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and others were thoroughly discussed in the committee. He has the right to revive that discussion; I do not question that. But it does seem to me that there is no useful purpose served in attempting to restrict the hon. member strictly to clause 1, and I do not ask that that be done. It seems to me the hon. member should take the interests of the farmers to heart.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do have them at heart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) stated the rule correctly when he said that on amendment motions the rules require that speeches made in the course of debate should be strictly relevant to the motion before the House. At the same time the Chair is in the hands of the House. The hon. member seeks permission to make a general speech on the first of his motions. If the House is in agreement, the hon. member will be granted this permission. I am not sure whether it will extend to other hon. members who want to take part in the debate on the first motion proposed by the hon. member, but we will cross that bridge if and when we get to it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering whether I understand you correctly. Surely on a given amendment there cannot be one judgment for one speaker and another judgment for another. I should like to know from the Chair whether the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is going to be allowed to roam over the whole spectrum of the bill. If so, surely this would apply equally to those who speak to the same amendment. Is that not what the hon. member requested?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
Mr. Horners Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the words of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and his concern in regard to a wide-ranging debate on the part of members of the House. I do not particularly want to engage the House in a wide-ranging debate on the bill; all I want- perhaps this is a little selfish of me-is to explain the general purport of my objections to Bill C-196 and the reasons I have filed so many amendments to it. I am prepared to do this when speaking to my first amendment to clause 2(10) of the bill.
I did raise the question in the committee, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is quite right to refer to the committee proceedings. If one wants to check the record, it is found in committee proceedings No. 39, the purport of my argument being at pages 18 and 19.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And repeated at page 21.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister advises me it is also at page 21, so he is well aware of the matter. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has undergone a tremendous transplantation in thinking in his move from the party that used to be to my extreme left, the Social Credit Party, to the Liberal Party. I say transplantation in thinking, not in brain, though I realize brain transplants are a very recent happening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has been given the permission of the House to make a speech general in nature, but I am not sure that the generality should extend this far.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate Your Honour's ruling and I should like to deal in a general way with the bill. This bill creates a mammoth change in the grain industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: An improvement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says it is an improvement. He has made a very important statement and I will write it down. In duly recording those words, let us ask ourselves: An improvement for whom?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says it is for the farmers. This act, which has been in effect for 40 years, was designed to safeguard producers' rights; to safeguard them in matters of weighing, sampling, grading, shrinkage, dockage, shipping, boxcars and so on. The purposes of the new act bear no relationship to

the purposes of the old, and this is why I wanted to record the words of the minister. Indeed, the new act enables the government and the railways to control and manage-


An hon. Member:: The bureaucrats.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: ducer of July 16 had this to say about protein grading:
Protein grading of Canadian wheat will not replace the traditional standards of quality, according to an expert in grains grading.
Dr. G. N. Irvine, director of the Canadian Agriculture Grain Research Laboratory at Winnipeg, Man., says protein grading "is intended to add a new criterion, and in this way to supplement and improve the present system."
What he is saying is that protein grading will not replace traditional standards of quality. Let us not forget that the old standards are still good. The effect of protein grading amounts to only an addition. This has been the main hue and cry by those who insist that this bill is an absolute necessity because we cannot sell wheat without protein grading. That was the cry last spring? What is the situation today? It is interesting to note what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has suggested. Let me read from the Western Producer of May 7, 1970, as follows:
The pool directors point out that uniformity of protein is important in maintaining markets-
One could go on quoting from various newspaper articles. The Western Producer of July 23 in its editorial states:
The demand has grown for wheat of a uniform protein standard-
There is no question that in today's marketing system uniformity can be established without this bill being passed. In fact, the elevator companies were instructed to gauge the protein content of grain received as long ago as July 1. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture stated as early as March 9, as reported in the Regina Leader Post:
There is some doubt, even if enabling legislation is passed, that a completely new wheat grading system could be worked out in time for the new crop year, agriculture minister Olson said Thursday.
That makes it abundantly clear that it was never conceived that this act would be put into operation this fall. What are the facts in respect of the whole question of protein grading? I read from the Calgary Herald of September 19 as follows:
Dr. Irvine said Canada must have protein grading to survive in the export market.
This article continues:
Dr. Irvine said the new act has had two readings in the House of Commons. If the House gives it a third reading after the summer recess it will allow new grades to be set up with the approval of the cabinet-
I want to emphasize those words "with the approval of the cabinet," rather than Parlia-
Canada Grain Act
ment. That is an interesting situation today. Who and what is really running Canada? I am naive enough to believe that Parliament is still supreme. It certainly should be supreme. Dr. Irvine says if we are to survive in the export market we must have protein grading. I read from an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of September 22, 1970:
Norman A. Hope, of Winnipeg . .. has orders for 400 million bushels of wheat to fill between August 1 and January 1.
Mr. Hope of Winnipeg was head of a special study in respect of grain transportation which was carried out under the auspices of the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Lang), responsible for the Wheat Board. It is an amazing amount of wheat to deliver during that period of time. Canada is selling an amazing amount in spite of the fact we are really not, and have not been, protein grading. It is interesting to note that at this time the Minister of Manpower, responsible for the Wheat Board, has two committees studying the wheat marketing situation. We are asked to pass this bill quickly without even studying or considering the reports of those committees. I read a newspaper article which appeared in the Calgary Albertan:
"The present transportation and handling system in the west is characterized by a profusion of small elevators located on closely spaced railway branch lines", Mr. Lang said.
The article continues:
Substantial improvements could be made that would both reduce the costs of handling and transporting the products and shorten the reaction time of the system in moving grain to markets-
The article continues:
Mr. Lang said the government is setting up an extensive study program to find ways to modernize the system.
He has also set up an extensive study program regarding grain marketing throughout the world. There are two study programs in existence dealing with grain handling in this country and grain selling in international markets. I have quoted a number of newspaper articles which deal with Canada's prospects for selling wheat in international markets. The last article from which I read suggests there is another study taking place concerning grain handling in Canada.
The amendment of which I speak and have enlarged upon deals with clause 2(10) and refers directly to trucks approved by the National Transportation Act. There are other faults in this bill which cannot be allowed to go unnoted because of a desire on my part or

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
on the part of others to facilitate the passage of the bill and its amendments. Let me deal with some of my other objections. The first is that this bill deletes one of the major features in the old act, which was to the effect that the government shall share the responsibility in respect of acts by the Queen's enemies or acts of God. The new act completely strikes out that provision and states that the elevator companies, the terminals and people storing Canadian wheat must accept that responsibility.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I asked Mr. Monk, legal counsel to the Board of Grain Commissioners and, I believe, in the past legal counsel to the Canadian Wheat Board, about this particular clause and its being included in the bill. He said there is no real need for it because the companies can carry their own insurance programs. No one carries insurance without paying for it. I accept Mr. Monk's statement that it is purely a matter of insurance. In the past the government has been the insurer. The government has come to the aid of any industry which has suffered as a result of an act of God or an act caused by enemies of the Queen. Under this new bill, in respect of striking out that clause Mr. Monk said quite clearly it is up to the insurance company. No insurance company is now writing such insurance. If an insurance company should be required to write such insurance, someone will have to pay the premium. I ask the minister or anybody in this House, who will pay the premium?


An hon. Member:: The farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As someone to my immediate right said, the farmers will pay. That is right, the farmers or the producers will pay. The cost to the producer will increase as a result. Let us go a little further. Under this bill, grain handlers, grain terminals and grain companies are not to be allowed to charge for the cost of drying grain. It is purely a coincidence that just last fall we suffered a very severe situation in respect of drying grain. Without any hint being given for the reason for doing so, this bill unaccountably reverses the policy which has been long established under the Canada Grain Act. It holds the custodian of grain responsible for any loss of condition not due to fault on his part. At first sight it may appear to benefit producers to throw onto someone else the cost of any necessary conditioning of grain. Instead, by making it hazardous for elevators to handle damp grain and by creating a reluctance to

do so, we may slow down the delivery of grain at primary elevators and its movement through terminals.
In a particularly damp fall, when there is a tremendous amount of out-of-condition grain, if the grain companies cannot charge for the drying of the grain, as was the situation under the old act, who will pay for it? The grain companies, if they cannot charge for drying the grain, may say that they are reluctant to take it. I remember the fall of 1959, last fall and particularly the fall of 1951 which was a wet fall. The terminals told the producers to send them their grain and stated that they would dry it, and so on. The new act makes no provision for a charge in respect of damp grain.
What is more important, in the new act there is provision for a period of transition. The bill provides for future changes to be made in specifications for grades of grain. Presumably a definite percentage of protein will be specified as necessary in the higher grades of wheat. The change will apply without difficulty to wheat marketed thereafter. It creates a problem left unsolved concerning what is to happen in respect of tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat the Canadian Wheat Board will have in store at the time of change.
There would seem to be a quite inaccurate assumption that the problem will be avoided by providing notice of eight months of impending change. There would seem to be an expectation that all problem wheat could be cleared out of the way in that time, something which could not possibly happen. What I am really saying is that under the bill there would appear to be an expectation that it would be possible to change grades within eight months. There is a clause which suggests the grades could be changed in a shorter period than eight months. What will happen in essence is that the grain companies, no matter whether they be members of the Alberta Wheat Pool, of which I am a member, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool or any line company, will suffer the loss.
This loss will be transferred back to the producer. I will try to tell you how. For every 100 million bushels of grain in storage, the banking concerns in our society have to put up the financing for its handling. If they suggest a loss could be incurred by the changing of grades, they will say they are not readily prepared to lend money to the grain handlers. If the banks are not readily prepared to lend money, they will demand a higher interest
October 6, 1970

rate. In other words, if I were an agent of a grain company I would go to the banks to borrow $100 million for the storage of grain in my company but I would receive only $90 million, with interest on $100 million. The higher rates and insecurity as a result of clause 15 of the hill will be passed right back to the producer.
There is another clause in the bill in respect of which I have an amendment. It is clause 41. Clause 41 suggests that the unions, in my interpretation of the clause, will be given greater bargaining power at the bargaining table. What concern, or what government-I say this in light of the government's recent problems in respect of the Post Office-has any real strength at the bargaining table where a labour union is concerned? There is no strength in the hand of business or in the hand of government. The strength in today's society is solely in the hands of the unions. Clause 41 of this bill specifically gives the unions greater strength. There is no change which would withstand the power now within the unions to strike and the subsequent effect of such a strike. So to my mind there is no doubt that the bill is in error in respect of that clause.
Another major problem which I find unacceptable in respect of Bill C-196 is this. Today we have the Canadian Wheat Board which handles all the problems in respect of wheat and grain marketing within the designated area. It provides for orderly marketing. Within that area it provides for a marketing agency and, in effect, a pricing agency in respect of international trade. This bill sets up powers within the Board of Grain Commissioners which definitely challenge the Canadian Wheat Board in more than one situation. Consider, for example, clause 59 of the bill, which suggests that the Board of Grain Commissioners has the right to approve mixing at the terminals. Until now the Wheat Board has been the seller and the pricer. It has put a grade of wheat on the market at a price, and it has had permission to mix all grains at the terminal except for grades 1, 2, 3 and 4. Clause 59 of the bill states that the mixing of grades at the terminal will be within the power of the Board of Grain Commissioners.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I dealt in the committee with the question of the split jurisdiction between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Canadian Wheat Board as well as other matters. I asked
Canada Grain Act
Mr. Monk, legal adviser to the Canadian Wheat Board in days gone by-I do not know whether he will be the legal adviser to the Board of Grain Commissioners-which board had the authority to make various rulings. Mr. Monk said that he guessed the decision of both would be required. No piece of legislation will ever prove successful unless jurisdiction is given to one board only. The two boards should not be allowed to squabble at some port or delivery point. Authority must be given to one board, which must be the supreme board. If that board wishes to establish several other boards under its jurisdiction, that is fine, but the authority of one board must be clearly established. This b 11 in fact interferes directly with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. I will not go into the question of whether the Canadian Wheat Board has become the sacred cow in the grain handling industry. I believe some changes should be made to the Wheat Board, but not such that would challenge the authority of that body with regard to mixing and grading of proteins.
Another area in which split jurisdiction arises is in grading. The Wheat Board is the seller, the pricer and the person who seeks out customers. This bill, however, suggests that the Board of Grain Commissioners should establish the standards and change the grades in order to meet the demands of the customers. The Wheat Board is in the forefront; it meets the demands of the customers and therefore it alone should be the adv:ser and the authoritative body with regard to the changing of grades. The Board of Grain Commissioners directly interferes with the operations of the Wheat Board.
Another area in which it interferes with the operations of the Wheat Board is in the allotment of box cars. Until now the Wheat Board has had supreme authority in the allotment of box cars to a particular delivery point. In this bill it is not clear which board has that authority. There is some question as to whether the Wheat Board will have the authority or whether it will be given to the Board of Grain Commissioners. I make those three points, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made particular note of the time when I rose to speak. I started to speak at 8.50 p.m. I am allowed 40 minutes.

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am advised by my advisers that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired. If he wishes to continue, he will have to receive the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am four minutes short, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear no consent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the accommodation that was made for the hon. member 40 minutes ago-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 36 minutes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -it seems to me it would be appropriate to go over the many amendments that have been proposed so that those members of the House who were not members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture will be made aware of the numerous representations heard by the committee and, indeed, of the consideration the committee gave to many of the matters that have been revived in the amendments to be considered by the House at the report stage.
I do not intend to take up the full 40 minutes, but I do intend to go over these amendments very briefly so that hon. members will realize that what is happening here is in fact a repetition of much of the debate that took place in the committee. The committee sat for an extended period of time, during which it made a very detailed and exhaustive study of the matters that were before it for consideration. Virtually all of the proposed amendments were discussed in the committee. Some have been slightly modified, but nearly all have been discussed. Many of them were rejected and some were approved with modifications to achieve the objective of the proposer without impairing the workability of the bill. A number of amendments were not put following the explanations that were given. Therefore, I would like to deal with the amendments one by one.
Amendment No. 1 was discussed in the committee on June 5, as recorded at page 17 of committee proceedings No. 39. After an exhaustive discussion it was defeated in the committee on June 16, as recorded at page 21 of committee proceedings No. 40. If we are to have an orderly debate, and if we are to deal with this matter with dispatch so as to take

into account all the representations that can properly be made by hon. members, we should respect the decision of that committee after its long and exhaustive discussion. Amendment No. 2 is concerned with clause 2(10). This matter also was fully discussed in the committee.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Amendment No. 3 relates to grain dealers. This amendment was discussed in the committee on June 16, as recorded at page 28 of committee proceedings No. 40 and was defeated on June 16, as recorded in proceedings No. 40 at page 49. So I contend that these matters have been fully discussed by those members of the committee who were charged with the responsibility of considering this matter on behalf of the House.
Amendment No. 4 is designed to limit weigh-overs at primary elevators to weigh-overs of the total grain stored. In practical terms, this does not necessarily work out in all cases and certainly the House would be failing in its responsibilities if it did not design a bill providing those statutory conditions that are necessary for practical and workable legislation.
Amendment No. 5 was discussed in the committee also. Amendment No. 6 was discussed in the committee, and amendment No. 7 was also discussed in the committee on June 17. Report No. 41, at page 17, covers this matter and an amendment has been recorded in the printed bill. It was approved on June 17, and so it has been dealt with.
So far as amendment No. 8 is concerned, it has some new aspects, but the reason for it is not clear unless it is intended to restrict the establishment of grain grades to the Governor in Council. Under the bill as written, statutory grades can only be established by the Governor in Council, but clause 16 provides power for the commission to establish grades for grain that is out-of-condition or ineligible for assignment to a statutory grade. It is very surprising to me that the hon. member would move this kind of amendment when it has always been the practice to set up grades outside of the statutory grades. These grades have been amendable from time to time by the Board of Grain Commissioners, usually on advice by advisory committees to the board, ever since 1930 when the statutory grades were put into the act.
Hon. members who are familiar with the gra n industry and with the Board of Grain Commissioners will know, and will know without any equivocation whatever, that the
October 6, 1970

establishment of grades by the Commission is necessary if we are to establish values and prices and to set up grades for the types of grain that do not necessarily meet the provisions of any particular grade established by statutory provision or by Order in Council.
So far a? amendment No. 9 is concerned, it was moved in the committee on June 18 and it was defeated in the committee on that date. This appears in report No. 42, at pages 28 and 47 respectively. So far as amendment No. 10 is concerned, this is new or at least it raises a new subject matter. It appears that it is designed to restrict research to the "quality" of grain. It seems to me it is unnecessary because the Governor in Council, the minister and Treasury Board would not allow duplication of effort by the Board respecting research carried on elsewhere in the government service.
With regard to amendment No. 11, it seems to me it is redundant because it is designed to provide an advisory committee to review proposed regulations. Mr. Speaker, an advisory committee can be established by by-law of the commission, and this can be done under clause 10(e). In my view it would be inappropriate to tie the commission or the Governor in Council into consultation on each and every regulation. This would be a completely new departure and, I suggest, a cumbersome, awkward, almost impossible manner in which to proceed, not only in the administration of this legislation but in regard to almost any other bill that is passed by Parliament and transferred to the government with the responsibility of carrying out the policy and the spirit contained within the legislation.
So far as amendment No. 12 is concerned, this is new but on examination its purpose is not clear. In fact, it seems almost indecipherable. However, if it is to allow the Governor in Council to direct that certain grades may only be assigned to grain being discharged from a terminal or a transfer elevator, it is not necessary because the purpose can otherwise be achieved. Amendment No. 13 is consequential upon acceptance of amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 14 deals with the matter of compensation and in my view, under our rules dealing with money bills, it would be out of order because acceptance of it would in fact put a charge on the Treasury.
So far as amendment No. 15 is concerned, it would appear to me that the mover, under clause 9(a), does not want the elevator company to make the grain or to suffer the loss in grade changes. It then follows that he wants the producer, directly or through the Canadi-
Canada Grain Act
an Wheat Board, or the grain dealer or the purchaser to feel the effect of any change. Also, it seems to me that the second part of the amendment is intended to provide for the use of old grades. I would advise you, Mr. Speaker, that this is now provided for under the transitional powers, however long it is deemed necessary that the transitional period be, through clause 106(l)(b) and 106(2) of the bill that is before us.
So far as amendment No. 16 is concerned, this appears to oppose the establishment of "commercial" and "off grades" by the commission without the approval of the Governor in Council. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, it appears to me that this is too restrictive since orders and actions of the commission are subject to directives issued by the Governor in Council or, indeed, by the minister. Everyone knows-I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) will agree with me-that the establishment of certain grades by the Commission is necessary if you are to have a reasonable, practical and workable system of grading and off grades within the system, taking into account the various situations that can arise in dealing with those grades.
Amendment No. 17 seems to me to contemplate some independent action by a committee with reference to the minister instead of to the commission. This can be accomplished for justified studies under clause 17(i)(b) with or without direction of the minister, upon request of the committee. Thus, again I think this point has been provided for and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. So far as amendment No. 18 is concerned, it seems to me that its purpose is that a quorum should be determined exclusive of the public servants who may be involved in the committee.
So far as amendment No. 19 is concerned, dealing with clause 17, this requires a report to Parliament by the western grain standards committee. This suggestion may have some validity, but let us not forget that the Board of Grain Commissioners or the new Canada Grain Commission is obliged to report to Parliament. It seems to me that any body that is set up to be advisory to them ought to report to them and then, if it is advisable, have the committee's report contained within the report that is made by the Canada Grain Commission to Parliament.
Dealing with amendment No. 20, this appears to propose to remove from the work of the committee examination of samples where a non-visual characteristic must be utilized in establishing the grade. In my opin-

October 8, 1970
Canada Grain Act
ion it is not necessary even if it were desirable, which it is not, because clause 19(3) does not require the commission to supply samples with respect to which the committee is not capable of forming a judgment by visual means. So, Mr. Speaker, I contend that this amendment is not necessary.
Dealing with amendment No. 21, this appears to follow the reasoning of amendment 20. However, it would remove the authority to designate export standard samples where a non-visual characteristic was utilized. Here again, I do not believe it is necessary, or if the substance of the amendment were to be deemed necessary, it could of course be dealt with in the regulations. Amendment No. 22, dealing with clause 24, was submitted to the committee but the clause was approved without amendment. Discussion took place, which can be found in report No. 42, at page 96. Of course, the bill provides for a minimum of 15 days. I suggest that this period could be extended as provided in the act.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
So far as amendment No. 23 is concerned, it proposes to have the minister appoint members of grain appeal tribunals. It is not clear in my mind why this would be a more appropriate procedure. However, amendment No. 25 proposes to reduce the panel from eight to four and it reduces the selection of those- this is important-available for appeal duties.
Dealing with proposed amendment No. 26, this proposes that the minister, instead of the commission, establish the term of office of the grain appeal tribunals. It seems that in the situation where the commission is responsible to the minister, and indeed responsible to Parliament, it should not be set up in such a way as to indicate insufficient confidence in the capability of the commission to establish these appeal tribunals, because certainly both the minister and Parliament under the rules and practices have something to say about this if the commission does not in fact meet the policy and general opinions expressed by the House.
Amendment 27 proposes to enlarge the quorum and to add producer representatives of various groups to the tribunal. I suggest there could be some difficulty in finding and appointing people under this qualification, because if anything is desirable in so far as grading is concerned it is that we need expertise and uniformity so that it is applied in the same way to all producers. If we accept this

amendment it will downgrade that very desirable objective.
In so far as proposed amendment No. 28 is concerned, this proposes to enlarge the right of appeal and to include appeals against nonvisual characteristics. If that is needed, in my opinion it can be provided in the regulations. As far as I am concerned, it is certainly possible now, under the provisions of the bill, to appeal and to have tests made with respect to those characteristics which, as the amendment points out, are non-visual.
Proposed amendment No. 29 relates to the same matter contained in proposed amendment No. 22. Proposed amendment No. 30 has the effect of providing appeals against grades assigned on the discharge from an elevator. Accordingly, these appeals could be made against certificates final. I suggest there is some point in the sale where we reach the point of certificate final and where there can be no further appeal because there are, in my opinion at least, the other courses and channels of redress open to do that. It has the possibility of greatly slowing down the practical and physical matters related to the sale and movement of grain if certificates final can in fact be challenged.
Proposed amendment No. 31 would restrict the bonding, insurance, etc., in respect of acts of God or the Queen's enemies. It seems unnecessary since the act does not require the commission to demand any insurance of any unusual type and we have to assume, I think properly, and indeed expect, that the commission would act in a responsible manner. Proposed amendment No. 32 requests an appeal to the Exchequer Court against a refusal by the commission to licence. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this has been provided for. The bill provides for public hearings under clause 80 and for a review by the minister under clause 78. As well, under the Federal Courts Act now before the House, appeals are provided under certain circumstances.
Proposed amendment No. 33, dealing with clause 39, as far as I am concerned is a refinement of drafting and really has no import in substance. Proposed amendment No. 34 was in fact moved in the committee and defeated, as recorded at page 55 of report No. 44. Proposed amendment No. 35 has the same status and relates to essentially the same matter.
Proposed amendment No. 36, dealing with clause 41 of the bill, requires producers to pay full storage rates in cases of extended work stoppage even though the cost to the elevator company is minimal. I suggest there
October 6, 1970



is a marked change in the cost of operating a terminal elevator if there is a work stoppage and therefore no wages to pay. I believe very firmly that there should be provision to substantially reduce the charges to the producers for the storage in those terminal elevators when in fact, because of a work stoppage, there is no opportunity for the owners of the grain to have it discharged from those elevators. It is elementary or common justice that the owner of that grain, in most cases the producers in the name of the Canadian Wheat Board, should not be required to pay the full storage charges to the elevator company when there is a work stoppage.
Proposed amendment No. 37 was proposed in committee as a somewhat similar amendment, as recorded at page 81 of report No. 44. The amendment was negatived but a new subsection 2 was added to cover this point and was put into the bill at page 25 of report No. 45. Dealing with proposed amendment No. 38, this is designed to authorize mixing if a holder of the elevator receipt so desires. In my opinion it is inappropriate, in the interests of producers, to enlarge the circumstances under which mixing may be permitted without authority of the commission. This, of course, will be amplified to some extent in the regulations that are drawn following the passage of this bill.
Proposed amendment No. 39 proposes to amend clause 62. It seems that the purpose is to delete the requirement for written permission of the commission. This section now provides that permission may be given by the commission or by a representative. Such representative is likely to be, and in most cases will be, on location at the elevator. This proposal was discussed extensively in committee, so that the committee members who did in fact consider and amend this bill were not unaware of this matter.
Proposed amendment No. 40, to amend clause 70 (1), seems to be designed to permit trucking by custom truckers and to designate the Canadian Wheat Board as the regulatory body. This is unnecessary, because the clause gives the opportunity for approval of any person to the commission. Furthermore, the Canadian Wheat Board Act provides authority to carry out the business assigned to the Canadian Wheat Board. Proposed amendment No. 41 proposes to remove from the control of the commission the movement of grain to primary elevators by public carriers. This control is considered necessary, in my view, but the section provides for this type of movement when permission has been obtained
Canada Grain Act
from the commission. This matter was also discussed extensively in the committee.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I now refer to proposed amendment No. 42, dealing with clause 71(3). The proposal deals with the allocation of railway boxcars at primary elevators in addition to producer cars. It seems to me that this provision is unnecessary and inappropriate because clauses 100 and 97, as well as the Canadian Wheat Board Act, cover the allocation of cars other than producer cars. Producer cars are covered by clause 71 of this bill. Clause 97 provides that the governor in council may direct the allocation of any railway cars. There is no point in elaborating greatly on this. I have been in the House on dozens of occasions when hon. members opposite have made representations to the government for this authority to be exercised by the government when, in the opinion of those hon. members, there was either an inappropriate or unfair allocation of boxcars between points or, indeed, in total. A provision is included to deal with that and, therefore, it does not seem to me it would be necessary or desirable to accept proposed amendment No. 42 dealing with clause 71(3).
Proposed amendment No. 43 deals with a new clause No. 101. This proposal would limit the duration of certain orders and regulations to a year without approval of a particular committee of the House. Mr. Speaker, with all the great respect I have for this House, I do not believe that any member of it really thinks that the committee of this House should change their responsibilities from those of lawmakers to those of administrators of that law. Those are the responsibilities of the government and its agencies, according to our constitution and the structure of our government. Certainly that would not be appropriate. It would be a completely new departure. In my opinion it would be wrong for the government and, indeed, the administration to restrict itself with this kind of amendment and this kind of provision in the bill. I predict that if we were to acquiesce in the amendment it would not take the committee long to realize that this change had placed a burden on it that was not appropriate or in keeping with its responsibilities as a law maker, and that it is not necessarily an administrator of government policies.
Proposed amendment No. 44 deals with clause 106(3). It proposes to allow the commission to follow the old grading system, whereas current clauses restrict that action to pre-

October 6, 1970
Canada Grain Act
scribed circumstances. Certainly, I believe this is the way to deal with this matter because if we do not deal with the change from the old grading system to the new grading system, which is more beneficial to the producers, under certain circumstances that would have to be prescribed, we would be failing in our responsibilities and not responding to the requests of the overwhelming majority of producers who are asking us to put provisions in a new Canada Grain Act that will allow them to modernize standards and conditions that are currently desirable in the international grain market.
Before sitting down I wonder if it would be appropriate for me at this point to suggest to the House that we continue sitting past the ordinary hour of adjournment until, say, twelve o'clock, in order that we may complete consideration of this bill and get it on the statute books for the benefit of the farmers concerned. If that is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we extend the hour of sitting until this bill is completed, or until twelve o'clock midnight.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I remind the minister that he needs the unanimous consent of the House to continue the debate beyond ten o'clock. Does the House give the Minister of Agriculture unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there must be an indication by at least ten members that they do not wish to sit past the usual hour of adjournment.


An hon. Member:: Give the farmers a break.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I bring to the attention of the minister the fact that a motion to extend the sitting must be put and if ten or more members do not rise and oppose the motion, it is deemed to be agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that clearly. I therefore move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), that we sit until we complete this bill or until twelve o'clock midnight, whichever is earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Olson.l


Some hon. Members:: No.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare
the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned for some time about the way in which public money voted by Parliament to assist the Canadian film industry is being spent. Recently I received from a number of Edmonton school children signed petitions asking for more family-type movies in the theatres. In particular, I should like at this time to read one of those letters into the record. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
I am a grade 5 student of Grandin School and I don't like some of the movies. Recently I went to movie called "Coogan's Bluff" with my sister and my friend. My sister is 19 and she thought this was just going to be a cowboy show.
I don't think I want to say what it was about. But in part of the movie there were people without clothes on. If this keeps up I'm going to circulate a petition. I was just looking in the paper and there was just 1 or 2 family shows, the rest were adult and restricted adult. And most people my age on a rainy day like to go to a movie. What do you expect us to do, sit around all day and stare into the rain?
Yours truly Mary Pat Nigro
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Disney company in Hollywood has for years specialized in family-type film fare and a recent news item indicated this company emerged with the top financial performance of any Hollywood company. You would expect the lesson would be plain enough even for Canadian government culture experts, but no; instead of learning from the success of Disney, the Canadian government has plowed public money into a series of films which are distasteful, disgraceful and deplorable to Canada and are clear evidence of a satellite culture.
October 6, 1970
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, you as a family man know how difficult it is to find for your children a movie which is not labelled "Restricted" or "Strictly adult." But the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has no children and really does not care, or does not realize the problem. So far we, the taxpayers, have paid for a National Film Board production on Abbie Hoffman, a convicted criminal in the United States now out on appeal, and a film called "Explosion" about an American draft-dodger who runs amok in British Columbia. This should have caused a public explosion among the taxpayers. Then we have the latest venture by Cine-pix in Montreal, described by one reviewer as a "nudie flick" and paid for by the Canadian public whose taxes are so high that most of them cannot afford to go and see this garbage. What's next-the life story of Charlie Manson? There is something morally wrong with a government which has this type of priority. At a later date I hope to introduce a private member's bill which will effectively deal with the growing pollution of our film industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the points raised by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I would preface my reply to his question or, more particularly, his representation, by reminding him that the Canadian Film Development Corporation is a Crown corporation which, as such, enjoys the degree of autonomy shared by all Crown corporations. I shall, of course, be glad to transmit the representation he has made to the Canadian Film Development Corporation and to the National Film Board, although the National Film Board was not mentioned during his original question this afternoon.
I am not in a position to make an elaborate reply this evening because I have not had time to get the type of reply I would expect from these agencies. This afternoon the hon. member asked specifically whether the Canadian government had invested a substantial amount of public money in a motion picture made in Montreal by Cinepix. I draw his attention to the fact that in the annual report of the Canadian Film Development Corporation which was tabled yesterday in the House, it is indicated on page 28 that the corporation has in fact invested money in two films made
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion by Cinepix. So the direct answer to the question is that an amount of capital has been invested in these two films by the corporation. 1 am not aware of the size of the amount. As I say, I will transmit the representation he has made further to his question to the Film Development Corporation.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-CLAIMS COMMISSION-INCLUSION OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS IN TERMS OF REFERENCE

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was afraid I would not be able to raise this matter again in an adjournment debate because a few moments ago we were considering continuing to deal with the agricultural legislation. 1 am pleased the House has decided, wisely, to continue with our debate on the adjournment motion because I do not think we could resolve the agricultural problems which have accumulated under this government in the space of two hours. Certainly, the question I raised earlier today is one which requires urgent attention.
I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) whether the government intended to broaden the terms of reference of the Indian Claims Commissioner so that he might deal with aboriginal and treaty rights. The minister referred the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) within whose responsibility he indicated the matter rested, and the Prime Minister in turn gave us to understand there was no intention on the part of the government to deal with this extremely important matter at this time. This is a problem that has repeatedly been brought before the government and the people of Canada and it is one of the main sources of difficulty facing Canadians of Indian ancestry.
The matter becomes important when we recall that it not only concerns the treaty Indians but also a large group of Metis who are of Indian ancestry but who have no rights established under the treaties. For them the only recourse is to investigate their claims as aboriginals of this country. That is their only hope of redress for a long period of neglect of which those of us in western Canada in particular have become acutely aware.
My attention was drawn to the problem just recently when the parliamentary committee on constitutional reform and amendments was travelling through northern parts of Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the

October 6. 1970
8854	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Yukon. At almost every stop we heard representations both from spokesmen for the Indian brotherhood and for the Metis association, urging the government to take immediate action on this point. They were not so much concerned with rewriting the constitution as with redressing the inequities of government practice ever since the time of confederation, inequities which have brought such strong reaction in recent days from both these groups.
In view of the articulate presentation made by such leaders as Harold Cardinal, who recently published his book "The Unjust Society", and the Indian brotherhood which have brought forward their red paper in answer to the so-called white paper of the government, and in face of strong representations made crystal clear in presentations on behalf of our first Canadians in regard to neglect in the area of aboriginal and treaty rights as well as land claims, I hope the government will now move much more expeditiously than in the past.
One of the reasons I want to raise this matter at this time especially is because the Prime Minister in his reply indicated that all members of the House concurred in the recommendations of the white paper. That, of course, is inaccurate, because in 1963 there was a motion on the Order Paper regarding the establishment of a land claims commission made up of a sufficient number of members to deal adequately with the complexities of this problem. Matters changed, of course, when the Liberal administration came into office.
This question has international implications that can only be sorted out by very careful legal study. The claims affect Indians living on both sides of the border. The United States government is proceeding to deal with the problem on their side, and I point out with reference to land claims in the Northwest Territories that it will take considerable legal documentation and deliberation on the part of expert researchers to settle long standing claims under Treaties 8 and 11.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary, who I note is speaking for both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), will assure us that these important actions will be taken.
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and North-


ern Development): Mr. Speaker, the Indian people have expressed concern about the fulfilment of treaty obligations and the administration of lands and funds as well as their claims to aboriginal rights. They have established a national committee on Indian rights and treaties, which the government is supporting, to do research into the whole question of Indian rights and claims. The government last December also appointed a commissioner to examine the claims of Indians in respect of treaty obligations and the administration of land and funds.
At the meeting between the government and Indian leaders on June 4, it was proposed that a consultative mechanism be established to provide a forum in which consideration could be given to many subjects of concern to Indian groups across the country. Discussions have been going on informally between representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood and the government on this question. At the June meeting the Indian associations also raised the question of how their grievances might be resolved. They were advised that the government would be prepared to examine their proposals. Consultations on this aspect have not yet taken place with Indian leaders.
In addition, it should be noted that an Indian group, the Nishga Tribal Council from British Columbia, has taken court action to affirm their aboriginal rights and, according to our information, an appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court. In view of this it would be inappropriate for the government to comment on this subject at this time.
POWER-SKAGIT	RIVER-APPLICATION OF



SEATTLE CITY LIGHT COMPANY TO RAISE HEIGHT OF DAM-EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL RIVER IMPROVEMENTS ACT

M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, my question today is in connection with a flooding in British Columbia of one of our very beautiful valleys. There is a very serious problem resulting from an arrangement between the province of British Columbia and the city of Seattle department of lighting relating to the flooding of the Skagit valley which is located in Canada. The original arrangement was made in 1942 and provided a power dam to be built for the benefit of power requirements in the U.S.A. on a river running south from Canada into the United States.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that back in 1942, during a time when we were all ravaged
October 6, 1970	COMMONS
by war, international agreements were influenced almost entirely by the requirements of the day, with little or no thought of ecological problems, environmental requisites, etc. The arrangement at that time did receive the blessing of the International Joint Commission, a body charged with the responsibility of approving international agreements. In 1955, some 10 years following the end of the war, the federal government in its wisdom realized that the possibility of exploitation of Canadian river resources to the detriment of Canadian requirements was a real possibility and enacted the International Rivers Improvements Act. This act was designed to provide protection against the possibility of provincial governments entering into international agreements relating to exploitation of our Canadian water resources without due consideration to Canadian policy and Canadian needs.
It is therefore incumbent upon this House of Commons to exert every power within our jurisdiction to assure Canadians in general and British Columbians in this case in particular that the government of British Columbia is acting and operating at the present time in the interests of the people of Canada in relation to the proposed plans for the flooding of the beautiful Skagit valley.
In 1967 an agreement was signed between the province of British Columbia and the city of Seattle to flood the Canadian portion of the High Ross reservoir site. Apart from normal requirements relating to removal of debris, and so on, the compensation to be paid to the province of British Columbia by the city of Seattle department of lighting is $34,566.21 per annum. This amounts to $5.50 per acre per year which is equal to two Christmas trees per acre per year.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


M. Ervin Pringle: The figures issued by the city of Seattle indicate that the net saving per year to the city amounts to $1 million compared with the next cheapest source of power. So we relate some $34,000 to $1 million and we feel the economics are not exactly what we would expect them to be, having in mind the past history of the province of British Columbia. It is possible that the compensation was arranged many years ago, but it is unreasonable to conceive that the puny amount of $35,000 could be acceptable at the present time.
I hold in my hand a number of telegrams, petitions and letters from interested Canadi-
DEBATES	8855
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ans who deplore the possibility of flooding the Skagit valley. Different people have different values, but all people respect each other's views. It is the view of many that we would not only be selling a valuable resource for a pittance but would be depriving generations of Canadians of the use of a recreational resource replaced by a limited one. This is not a backpack type area. Access is easy now. Some thousands of families use the Skagit for stream fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, enjoying the scenery and lake fishing on Ross Lake as it is today. One reason Ross Lake, which is the lake in question, is now popular is the quality of the fish. Ross Lake does not depend on artificial stocking; the fish are native fish.
Let me quote the Washington State Department of Game. That department states that these are strictly native fish, that they are robust and chunky and that the meat is a deep red. It is stated further that if the dam is raised and the spawning areas are wiped out, it then may be impossible to duplicate this fine rainbow through hatchery breeding. The Ross Lake fishery, like most other lakes in the States does not depend on artificial stocking and the new lake level will flood out major spawning areas along creeks that flow into the lake-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired, and I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the flooding of the Skagit River valley which has been threatened was authorized under an order of the International Joint Commission dated January 19, 1942. This order was granted after a public hearing to permit opponents to the scheme to make submissions to the International Joint Commission. I am advised that there was no public interest in the hearing and that no opposition was offered to the proposed flooding, which is understandable 30 years ago when the Skagit River valley was almost inaccessible and, to the best of my information, no private land owners were involved.
However, in the past 30 years no action has been taken on the International Joint Commission order and in the course of those years a very considerable change in circumstances has occurred. The Skagit River valley is now accessible by road and because of its proximity to Vancouver, which is rapidly developing
October 6, 1970
8856	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion into one of the major cities of the world, it has become a matter of paramount importance that such recreational facilities as it offers and its aesthetic qualities be preserved.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has had under consideration for some time the various methods by which a

review of the decision to permit the flooding can be achieved, and it is expected that a decision as to the steps proposed by the government will be announced in the very near future.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 7, 1970