1970-04-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and prerogatives of Parliament. My question of privilege has to do with the statements which have recently been made by ministers of the Crown respecting the Auditor General of Canada.
On March 25, on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation national news, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said: -we don't regard it as being his responsibility to criticize the underlying policy involved in certain decisions. It is Parliament's responsibility and the government as approved by Parliament for deciding on the policy. We don't think it is the Auditor General's prerogative to comment on that.
More recently, on the CBC program "Encounter" on April 11, 1970, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), referring to the Auditor General, said:
He has expressed his view as to the appropriateness of some government policies. Now, in this sense he is pitting his judgment as to sound business practice, sound governmental policy, against the government, and not unnaturally you would not expect a government in every instance to agree with his judgment. I wonder myself whether the Auditor General should cast himself in this role or whether we should look for really another kind of person to be Auditor General-
No one needs to remind the House that the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, that it is his duty to report to Parliament any improprieties or wasteful expenditures which he encounters in the pursuance of his duties. Naturally there will be times when the members of the government will disagree with the opinions expressed by the Auditor General in his report. If they disagree they have two courses of action open to them. First, if the government finds that the criticisms of the Auditor General are uncalled for and unjustified, it can place its case before the Public Accounts Committee. That is the place for the
government to argue that the Auditor General has exceeded his responsibilities and has dealt with policy matters rather than expenditures. The government at that time is in a position to explain any extenuating circumstances as to why the government made expenditures which were not authorized by Parliament and not made on the basis of statutes.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The government has a second remedy open to it. If it believes that the Auditor General is incompetent and that he is incapable of interpreting his responsibilities accurately, the government can introduce a motion into both Houses of Parliament calling for his dismissal. The House at that time would have an opportunity to hear the government state its case and to make a decision on the basis of all the facts presented. These are two things the government can do.
I submit to you, Sir, that what it cannot do is harass and intimidate the Auditor General, nor bludgeon him into silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me very clear that the government has two choices. If it is dissatisfied with the services of the Auditor General it should introduce a motion into this House to fire him. If it does not care to do that it should contain itself, let us argue the question out before the Public Accounts Committee, and allow the Auditor General to continue his work of being the watchdog of Parliament and the protector of the public purse.
My question of privilege is that an officer of Parliament in the pursuance of his duty is being intimidated and harassed in such a manner as to interfere with the proper pursuance of his responsibilities as the Auditor General. If Your Honour finds that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the required notice to the Chair of his intention to raise this very important matter by way of a question of privilege. During the last few hours I have had occasion to reflect very seri-

April 13, 1970
Auditor General
ously on the point raised by the hon. member, to study precedents and look at the authors of the original decisions, and to prepare for a decision in light not only of the notice but of the arguments now presented to this House by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
The hon. member knows that the ruling which the Chair' has to make at this time is a procedural one, that is, to determine whether, according to our rules of practice and precedents, in these circumstances alluded to by the hon. member there is a prima facie case of privilege. Hon. members are aware, of course, of the traditional definition of parliamentary privilege. It has been my privilege from time to time to give what I thought was the proper definition of this very important aspect of the rights, duties and responsibilities of members in both houses, and my definition has always been based on the one reported in May's Parliamentary Practice.
According to May, Parliamentary privilege is the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively and by members of each House individually without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Perhaps I should stress here that the reference by May is to the discharge of their functions by Members of Parliament themselves, not by an officer of Parliament or an official of the House of Commons. Thus, privilege, although part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an extension to the ordinary law and an exemption in a way from the ordinary law of the land. In the words of the learned author, it is when these special and exclusive rights of members appear to have been impeded that a prima facie case of privilege, and a motion founded thereon, can be considered either by the House or by a committee.
Is criticism of an official responsible to Parliament, such as the Auditor General, in the terms allegedly used by the President of the Treasury Board or earlier by the President of the Privy Council, tantamount to a breach of parliamentary privilege?
In attempting to answer this question one must remind hon. members that if it is the conduct of a minister or ministers of the Crown that is under question, then the matter can be considered by this House only by way of a substantive motion. I do not believe this is what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands had in mind. But if this were the approach he presented to the House and

if he wanted to bring before the committee on Privileges and Elections the conduct of members of the government or individual members of this House in respect of the Auditor General's discharge of his responsibilities, then this could be done only by way of a substantive motion.
Hon. members are aware of the well-known decision of Mr. Speaker Michener reported in the Journals of the House of Commons for June 19, 1959 at pages 581 and following, which I think is relevant and has been quoted by subsequent Speakers on numerous occasions. If it is a grievance which the hon. member has against the administration, then the matter might be raised more properly by way of a censure motion against the government.
The third point I should like to propose for the consideration of hon. members has been made in a sense by the hon. member himself in his presentation of a moment ago. It relates to the fact that the Auditor General's report is now before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It may well be that the Committee on Public Accounts rather than the Committee on Privileges and Elections is the proper forum for the consideration of the matter raised by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands. This, I would think, is a conclusion to which I would like to come. All things considered, and without in any way minimizing the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member, I do not think it should be considered by the House in the form of a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to ask unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 for the purpose of putting a motion to the House. In doing so I am fortified by the excellent presentation by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who has laid the first foundation for my motion.
The continued attacks on the Auditor General in the exercise of his duty by members of the government, including the statements made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in a television interview on April
April 13. 1970

11, constitute an unprecedented and arrogant threat to the Auditor .General which would result in limiting supervision of the spending of the taxpayers' money. Without the means and opportunity to defend himself, the government should not stoop to attacks of this kind which weaken the position of the Auditor General and his effectiveness in dealing with the public accounts of Canada. If they are satisfied that he is in breach of his duty they have a remedy under the Financial Administration Act.
I therefore ask leave to put the following motion:
That this House regrets the continued attacks by members of the government on the Auditor General of Canada who, in the exercise of his duty, has justified the confidence of the House by making annual reports to Parliament without fear or favour.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. The motion can be put at this time for consideration by the House if there is unanimous agreement. I must ask whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not agreement the motion cannot be put.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Trampling on the rights of Parliament!


An hon. Member:: The just society!



CRITICISMS BY MINISTERS-REQUEST (MR.     KNOWLES, WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE) FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to ask for the consent of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43. The Standing Order reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
The explanation I wish to give is very brief. The situation which has been the subject matter of the last two interventions is a very serious one, but there is something we can do in a moment to resolve it. I ask that when the Prime Minister hears my motion he request those on his side of the House not to object to its being put.
Auditor General


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Aiken:: What about the Prime Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: What a hope!


Stanley Howard Knowles: accept your ruling, sir, that there was not a question of privilege as privilege is defined, but by unanimous action the House can do something to resolve the situation. I respectfully request that consideration be given to the granting of unanimous consent, and on that basis I move:
That this House reaffirms its confidence in Mr. Maxwell Henderson as Auditor General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairweather:: What about that, boys?


An hon. Member:: Say "no".


Mr. Speaker:: I will not make a ruling at this time on whether it is in order according to the Standing Orders to have more than one motion on the same subject under Standing Order 43. I have never seriously considered the point, and this would not be an appropriate time to make that kind of ruling. With this reservation I will accept the motion proposed by the hon. member from the procedural stand point, and ask whether the House gives unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 for the motion to be put now?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not some way for those who said "no" to identify themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is included.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth rises in his place.


Mr. Bell:: Make him a Parliamentary
Secretary.


Mr. Trudeau:: Maybe even a minister.


An hon. Member:: Give him a judgeship.

April 13, 1970
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coales: 1.	How many Cabinet Ministers have offices located in their constituencies that are maintained at government expense and in each instance, is the office in question located in a government building and, in those cases, where they are not, what is the cost to the federal government for office rentals?
2.	How many Cabinet Ministers, who have constituency offices, have these offices staffed and, in each instance, what is the name of the Cabinet Minister, the location of the constituency office, the names of the person or persons in the constituency office and the salary they receive from the federal government?


Mr. Yves Foresl (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Offices in Ministers' Constituencies:
Minister		Type of	
Constituency	building	LocationRt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau	Mount Royal	Rented	5250 Ferrier St., Montreal 308, Que. Annual rent $7,360.20Hon. A. J. MacEachen	Cape Breton Highlands-Canso	Federal	Inverness, N.S. Port Hawkesbury, N.S.Hon. E. J. Benson	Kingston and the Islands	Federal	Kingston, Ont.Hon J. L. Pepin	Drummond	Federal	Drummondville, Que.Hon. J. J. Greene	Niagara Falls	Federal	551 Clifton Ave., Niagara Falls, Ont.Hon. J. P. Cote	Longueuil	Federal	Post Office Building, Longueuil, Que.Hon. B. Mackasey	Verdun	Federal	Verdun, Que.Hon. D. S. Macdonald	Rosedale	Federal	241 Jarvis St., Toronto, Ont.Hon. G. Pelletier	Maisonneuve	Rented	3450 Ontario St., East, Montreal, Que. Annual rental $1,675.80Hon. H. A. Olson	Medicine Hat	Federal	Medicine Hat, Alta.Hon. R. Basford	Vancouver Centre	Federal	1001 West Pender St., Vancouver, B.C.Hon. E. Kierans	Duvernay	Federal	6084 Blvd. Levesque, St-Vincent de Paul, Que.Hon. R. K. Andras 2.	Port Arthur	Federal	318-33 Court St., South* Port Arthur, Ont.Minister	Location	Staff	Salary Scale $ 5,000- 7,500Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau	Suite 804, 5250 Ferrier St., Montreal 308, Que.	Miss S. Granda	Hon. E. J. Benson	Kingston, Ont.	Mrs. H. McKenna	5,000- 7,500Hon. J. J. Greene	551 Clifton Ave., Niagara Falls, Ont.	Mrs. Lydia Shannon	5,000- 7,500Hon. J. P. Cote	Post Office Bldg., Longueuil, Que.	Mrs. Marthe Dubois	5,000- 7,500April	13. 1970	COMMONS	DEBATES Questions	Minister	Location Staff	Salary ScaleHon.	B. Mackasey	Verdun, Que.	Mrs. H. Filion	5,000- 7,500Hon.	D. S. Macdonald	241 Jarvis St., Toronto, Ont.	Mr. Gerald Tooke	7,500-10,000Hon.	G. Pelletier	3450 Ontario St., East, Montreal, Que.	Mr. Charles Tremblay	5,000- 7,500Hon.	H. A. Olson	Medicine Hat, Alta.	Mrs. M. M. Anhorn Mrs. I. M. Burton	2.500-	5,000 2.500-	5,000Hon. R. Basford	1001 West Pender St., Vancouver, B.C.	Miss Helen Lamont	2,500- 5,000Hon.	J. L. Pepin	Drummondville, Que.	Miss L. Beaudry	2,500- 5,000Hon.	E. Kierans	6084 Blvd. Levesque, St-Vincent de Paul, Que.	Miss Anny Kinkela	5,000- 7,500Hon.	R. K. Andras	318-33 Court St., South, Port Arthur, Ont.	Mr. Fred Baker	7,500-10,000


PUBLIC SERVICE PERMANENT AND CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total number of permanent employees in the Public Service of Canada at the time that the Prime Minister announced the government's austerity program?
2.	What was the total number of casual employees in the Public Service of Canada at the time that the Prime Minister announced the government's austerity program?
3.	What is the total number of permanent and casual employees in the Public Service of Canada as of today?


Yves Forest: 1. 204,129.
2.	30,058.
3.	219,885.


TEMPORARY AND CASUAL EMPLOYEES, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many temporary employees were hired by the Post Office Department during December 1969?
2.	What was the number hired in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax, Saint John, N.B., St. John's, Nfld., Charlottetown, Quebec City, Ottawa, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon?
3.	What was the hourly wage rate in each of these cities?
4.	(a) In what centres, other than those mentioned in Part 2, were casual employees hired (b) what was the number and total wage in each case?
5.	What was the estimated total cost of providing mail service on the three Saturdays preceding Christmas 1969?
6.	How much of this is accounted for by (a) wages for casual employees (b) overtime for regular employees (c) other factors?
7.	How many protests were received by the Post Office Department concerning payment of casual employees at a rate below the generally prevailing minimum wage rate?
8.	From what groups or individuals were such protests received?
9.	What was the nature of the reply given?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmasier General and Minister of Communications):: 1. 61,935.
2.	Montreal, 7,109; Toronto, 7,786; Vancouver, 4,704; Winnipeg, 2,401; Halifax, 899; Saint John, N.B., 552; St. John's, Nfld., 353; Charlottetown, 95; Quebec City, 979; Ottawa, 2,122; Victoria, 806; Edmonton, 2,035; Calgary, 2,162; Regina, 581; Saskatoon, 485.
3.	(a) $1.25 for unskilled inside duties;
(b)	$1.50 for heavy work and outside duties;
(c)	$1.75 for trained help who perform duties commensurate with their training.
4.	(a) 408 Staff post offices, 1,769 semi-staff post offices; (b) the number of temporary helpers employed in each case is not available. Estimated cost, $2,077,887.
5.	Exact figures for the cost of the operations for the Saturdays preceding Christmas 1969 were not segregated from the over-all Christmas costs. The estimate of $350,000 per day as outlined on Pages 1891, 1892 of Hansard, on December 11, 1969, for delivery of mail is still considered a representative amount of the overtime paid to Letter Carriers for each of these days. In addition,

April 13, 1970
Questions
Christmas help was supplied to the extent of approximately $80,000 on each of the days. The costs of the normal Saturday operation or additional administration and transportation costs on these days are not included.
6.	(a) Approximately $80,000; (b) approximately $350,000; (c) information not available.
7.	17.
8.	British Columbia Federation of Labour; Women's Caucus, Vancouver; Burnaby Civic Employees; CUPW, Local 23 Vancouver; CUPW, Local 23 Halifax; Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada; Winnipeg and District Labour Council CLC.
9.	Federal minimum rate was applied.


MOVEMENT OP COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES FROM QUEBEC
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many companies and/or businesses have moved out of Quebec in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive and where did they subsequently locate in Canada or elsewhere?
2.	What was the reason, if any, given for the move in each case?
3.	How many companies and/or businesses have moved into Quebec in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive and where did each locate?
4.	Have any of those in Part 3 subsequently moved from Quebec and, if so, where to and for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Information requested is not available.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-APPLICATION OF FILM CHARGES AT OVERSEAS LOCATIONS
Mr. Rose: 1.	Are the new charges announced for bookings of National Film Board films to be applied at overseas locations as well as in Canada?
2.	Are these charges to be applied in all cases of showings or bookings of films which have been commissioned by government departments?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Rental charges for films have now been cancelled.


PROJECTED DEMAND FOR FILM PRODUCTION
Mr. Rose: 1.	Has the government made any projections of the demand for films in Canada in the future for various uses and, if so, what are the names of any such studies and what were their conclusions? [Mr. Kierans.l
2.	Has the government made any study of the effect of the size of firm on the per unit costs of film production?
3.	(a) What is regarded as the optimal size of plant for film production of various kinds (b) how many film production firms are there above and below this optimum and what are their names?
4.	What percentage of the film production firms in the two categories and in total are (a) Canadian owned (b) foreign owned?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. In the opinion of the National Film Board, demand for films in Canada in the future will depend on (1) growth of population by various age groups; (2) increase in educational facilities; and (3) economic well-being of various age groups. No formal study has been conducted by the National Film Board but its distribution officers across Canada keep informed of new developments.
2.	Based on tenders received by the National Film Board from film producing companies, the size of a firm on the per unit cost of film production is not significant.
3.	With few notable exceptions, film producing companies do not maintain a technical services plant. These services are obtained from companies operating processing laboratories, sound recording studios, stage facilities, etc.
4.	This information is not available to the National Film Board.

CANADIAN DOCTOR/POPULATION RATIO


Mr. Mafher: For the years 1955, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, what was the Canadian doctor/population ratio?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The population/physi-cian (including graduate junior interns) ratio in Canada was as listed below:	
Year (as of December 31 of that year)	Population/ physician ratio
1955	929
1960	828
1965	779
1966	763
1967	749
1968	744
1969	718
April 13. 1970


C.B.C. PURCHASE OF U.S. PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: How much has the CBC paid in each of the past five years for the purchase of US programs (a) drama-including all filmed drama whether theatrical, film or television series (b) light entertainment-television specials, regular variety and light entertainment programs (c) public affairs programs (d) sport or other programs?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Records have not been kept in such a way that CBC expenditures for U.S. and other program purchases can be determined by program category. A review of available information reveals that, although total expenditures for U.S. programs have risen, as indicated below, this has been due generally to rising costs rather than to a proportionate increase in U S. program purchases which did not change appreciably over the five year period. The following figures are approximate gross expenditures by CBC English and French-language services for U.S. program purchases, the cost of which was recovered, with minor exceptions, through commercial revenue. In $000's: 1965, $5,500; 1966, $6,000; 1967, $6,400; 1968, $7,400; 1969, $7,600.


RESTORATION OF LONG HARBOUR FISHERY
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Following the answer by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to Question Number 2,470 of the First Session of this Parliament, has long Harbour, Newfoundland now been reclaimed for fishing?
2.	What steps were taken to make this possible?
3.	Were all of these measures taken by the Electric Reduction Company of Canada?
4.	Was the Government of Canada involved in any expense and, if so, in what amount?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Yes.
2.	Dredging was done.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. (i) Loans to fishermen outstanding, $100,000. (ii) Fish purchase program: total purchase cost to date, $211,000; total value of sales, $43,200; Total, $167,800. (iii) Claim outstanding concerned with purchase program (awaiting headquarters decision) $12,000. Total: $279,800.
Questions


APPLICANTS FOR THIRD TORONTO TELEVISION CHANNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many applications have been made for the third TV channel to be located in Toronto?
2.	Who are the applicants and what is the address of each?
3.	What other radio or TV outlets does each have at the present time?
4.	What remuneration will be received by the federal government for the award of the TV channel?
5.	What criteria will be utilized in order to determine which applicant will be accepted?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. The CRTC has at present three (3) applications for a UHF-TV licence at Toronto.
2.	The applicants are: A company to be incorporated represented by David Goldberg, Suite 812, 321 Bloor St. East, Toronto. A company to be incorporated represented by Leslie A. Allen, c/o 2 Ellen Str., Brampton, Ontario. A company to be incorporated represented by H. J. Foley, c/o B. M. Thall, 80 King Street West, Toronto.
3.	The partners to "a company to be incorporated" are confidential and would not be made public until a date for a public hearing of the application has been announced.
4.	None. Each broadcasting station pays an annual licence fee.
5.	The following are the important factors to be considered by the CRTC in the granting of a new licence: (a) Coverage of the proposed station; (b) Nature of the facilities to be provided by the applicant; (c) Composition of the initial Board of Directors of the Company;
(d)	Distribution of the voting stock in the Company, and the location of effective control;
(e)	General plan of financing; (f) Financial capacity of those involved in the application; (g) Experience and standing of those involved in the application; (h) Association of the applicants with other media of communication; (i) Estimates of expected revenue and of the capacity of the market to support an additional television station; and particularly of the capacity of the market to meet the full costs of the service to which the applicant would be committed, (j) Establishment proposed by the applicant, and the experience and capacity of the personnel, particularly the management personnel, to be appointed;

April 13, 1970
Questions
(k) Manner in which the programming policies of the station would be determined and implemented; (1) The program commitments of the applicant in relation to the requirements of the Act and the regulations that the service be varied, of a high standard, and basically Canadian in content and character; (m) Characteristics of the community, the nature of the available broadcasting service, and the capacity of the applicant to meet the varied needs of the proposed service area.


REJECTION BY UNIONS OF APPEALS FOR MODERATE WAGE DEMANDS
Mr. Souiham: 1.	In its effort to combat the present high inflation cycle in Canada, is it the government's intention to make a special enquiry into the problem of "why unions reject appeals to moderate wage demands"?
2.	What reason is being given by CLC and CNTU that any program of voluntary restraint on wages will be rejected?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1 and 2. No. The
Prices and Incomes Commission has engaged in a series of exploratory discussions with the executives of the CLC and the CNTU, with a view to broadening the restraint program, endorsed by the Federal/Provincial Conference of First Ministers at their meeting on February 16-17, 1970 to include wage and salary earners. This subject was discussed at public meetings between the Government and the CLC and the CNTU on March 23, 1970.


FEDERAL CONSIDERATION OF OUTLAWING TOBACCO ADVERTISING
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government considering the advisability of outlawing the advertising of tobacco?


John Carr Munro: The Department of National Health and Welfare is examining the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs concerning cigarette advertising, as well as other suggestions made by the Committee.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many (a) staff members (b) volunteers (c) consultants (d) others have been employed by and/or involved in the Company of Young Canadians in each year since its inception?

2.	How many have joined the Company of Young Canadians and how many of (a), (b), (c) and (d) in Part 1 have left the Company of Young Canadians in each year since its inception?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. The number of persons employed by the C.Y.C. in each year since its inception is: (a) Staff: 1966 to April
1967,	73; April 1967 to December 1967, 117; January 1968 to December 1968, 107; January 1969 to December 1969, 136.
(b)	Volunteers: 1966 to April 1967, 136; April 1967 to December 1967, 267; January 1968 to December 1968, 288; January 1969 to December 1969, 333.
(c)	Consultants: 1966 to April 1967, 30; April 1967 to December 1967, 21; January 1968 to December 1968, 23; January 1969 to December 1969, 35.
(d)	Council members: 1966 to April 1967, 30; April 1967 to December 1967, 21; January 1968 to December 1968, 23; January 1969 to December 1969, 35.
2.	The number of persons who joined the C.Y.C. and the number of persons who left the C.Y.C. are as follows: (a) Staff: 1966 to April 1967, 64 joined, 19 left; April 1967 to December 1967, 53 joined, 42 left; January 1968 to December 1968, 30 joined, 60 left; January 1969 to December 1969, 29 joined, 96 left.
(b)	Volunteers: 1966 to April 1967, 95 joined, 18 left; April 1967 to December 1967, 184 joined, 65 left; January 1968 to December
1968,	158 joined, 108 left; January 1969 to December 1969, 153 joined, 176 left.
(c)	Consultants: 1966 to April 1967, 10 joined, 21 left; April 1967 to December 1967, 3 joined, 16 left; January 1968 to December 1968, 10 joined, 24 left; January 1969 to December 1969, 1 joined, 24 left.
(d)	Council members: 1966 to April 1967, 30 joined, 11 left; April 1967 to December 1967, 3 joined, 3 left; January 1968 to December 1968, 5 joined, 3 left; January 1969 to December 1969, 15 joined, 24 left.


PURCHASE OF U.S. TELEVISION PROGRAM, &quot;SESAME STREET&quot;
Mr. Rose: Is CBC now giving favorable consideration to the purchase of the television program Sesame Street from the United States' National Educational Television network and, if so, will CBC purchase this
April 13, 1970

program in accordance with the instructions of the producers that it must be aired completely free of commercials?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC that it is in the process of negotiating purchase of the program and that a condition of sale, to the effect that commercials cannot be scheduled during the program content, would have to be met.


HALIFAX, MONTREAL, TORONTO HARBOURS- FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Chappell: What is the total amount spent by the federal government for maintenance, improvements or development of the harbours and port facilities at Halifax, Montreal and Toronto during each of the past five years?


Yves Forest: The
following expenditures were made from Department of Public Works funds:
Year	Halifax $	Montreal	Toronto $1965	500	Nil	87,5001966	1,500	Nil	253,4001967	10,000	Nil	732,2001968	4,600	Nil	123,8001969	2,100	Nil	7,000In respect of harbours administered by the National Harbours Board the amounts are Halifax	Montreal
Maintenance Capital Maintenance Capital
$	$	$	$1965	367,336	1,352,020	2,245,338	6,811,2891966	474,679	3,875,796	2,222,575	11,032,5221967	459,039	3,380,024	2,761,206	7,525,6911968	407,218	916,752	2,556,328	5,002,2381969	497,191	4,590,840	5,771,301	3,478,900


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was the Chairman of the National Capital Commission appointed to his present position, what was the term of the appointment and what is his annual salary?
2.	Were any special conditions associated with his appointment regarding his personal involvement in other work of any type and, if so, what are these conditions and what specific amount of time must the Chairman devote to the work of Chairman of the National Capital Commission?
Questions
3.	Have former Chairmen of the National Capital Commission had similar arrangements associated with their appointment to that position?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secrelary lo Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The Chairman of the National Capital Commission was appointed September 1, 1969, for a term of four years. His salary is within the range of a DM 1 ($28,000-$33,000).
2.	That he devote 75 per cent of his time to the function of Chairman and that any outside duties not involve a conflict of interest with his NCC duties.
3.	Yes.


CHARTERED SCHOLARSHIP TRUST PLANS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	(a) How many scholarship trust plans have been chartered by the federal government and what are the terms of reference acceptable for their establishment (b) what obligation is there to file financial statements (c) are minutes of the meetings public documents (d) have any federally chartered scholarship plans gone into bankruptcy or defaulted (e) have any provincially chartered scholarship plans gone into bankruptcy or defaulted (f) what guarantees are made for subscribers or members (g) are there any restrictions on where the scholarship plan funds are to be invested and how or where and, if so, what are the investment requirements?
2.	Does the federal government have any plans to absorb any such Canadian chartered scholarship trust plans into a national scholarship fund?


Yves Forest: 1. (a) Five scholarship trust plans have been chartered by the Federal government, two of which have been dissolved. There have been no recent Federal incorporations of such plans.
(b)	The existing corporations were incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act as non-profit no share capital corporations and no financial statements are required to be filed with this Department. However, the existing corporations enter trust agreements with recognized trust companies which in turn provide participants in the plan with financial details.
(c)	Minutes of the meetings are not public documents.
(d)	No federally chartered trust plans have gone bankrupt; however two such corporations have been dissolved for default in filing notices.
(e)	Information not available.
(f)	Any guarantees that might be made for subscribers and members would be covered

April 13, 1970
Questions
as a matter of contract between them and the corporation.
(g)	The investment of funds would be governed by contract and trust company law.
2. No.


&quot;WEEKEND&quot; PROGRAM, &quot;LAW AND ORDER-PRAIRIE STYLE&quot;
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has CBC or CRTC received any complaints or commendations with respect to the "Weekend" program for February 1, 1970, entitled Law and Order-Prairie Style?
2.	How many complaints were made, by whom and what was the nature of the complaints?
3.	What action has been taken by (a) CRTC (b) CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1 and 2. The CRTC received one unfavourable comment referring to certain alleged inaccuracies. The CBC received 8 favourable and 18 unfavourable comments. The unfavourable comments came from a number of individual viewers, the Regina Chamber of Commerce and the Regina Responsible Citizens Committee. The complaints varied but basically contended that the subject was not given a fair presentation.
3.	(a) The CRTC noted the observations and referred the complaint to CBC which is normal practice where there is no clear evidence of infraction to the Broadcasting Act or regulations. (b) The reaction was made known to the program people of the CBC directly concerned.


CONVERSION OF COLLEGE ST. JEAN, EDMONTON, TO FRENCH LANGUAGE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the federal government received a proposal from the Government of Alberta for the conversion of College St. Jean, Edmonton to a French language university specializing in teacher training within the framework of the $50 million fund made available since January 1, 1970?
2.	What has been the response to this proposal?
3.	What would be the reasons for the government's reaction to the proposal?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Last summer, before the announcement of the proposals of the federal government concerning cooperation with the provinces with respect to bilingualism programs in the field of education, the Secretary of State Department received an enquiry from the Department of Education of Alberta concerning the possibility of making use of the College St. Jean in Edmonton as a centre for the training of bilingual teachers in the West. Subsequently, the government announced proposals concerning cooperation with the provinces on November 6. Since then the Under-Secretary of State has written to the western provinces seeking their views on the matter of a teacher training institute for the West. Provincial comments have not yet been received.
2.	See (1).
3.	See (1).


CANADA COUNCIL RESEARCH GRANT TO PROFESSOR WILLIAM MORRISON
Mr. Dinsdale: Is Professor William Morrison of the University of Manitoba in receipt of a Canada Council research grant and, if so (a) what is the amount of the grant (b) what is the nature of the research (c) will the results of Professor Morrison's research be published?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes. (a) $2,500. (b) Prof. Morrison, a sociologist working in cooperation with the departments of psychiatry of the Manitoba School of Medicine and the Winnipeg General Hospital, conducted a scientific inquiry on the social characteristics and the attitudes of women engaged in prostitution, (c) Not known. While the Canada Council expects recipients of its Research Grants to make the results of their research known to other scholars, it is the researcher who chooses the means of doing so.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-CONSTITUENCY OF RICHMOND PERSONNEL
Mr. Beaudoin: By year since 1966, in the constituency of Richmond (a) how many employees has the Post Office Department paid (b) what is the number of (i) full-time employees (ii) part-time employees (c) how many part-time employees are (i) 21 years of age or under (ii) 22 to 49 years of age (iii) 41 to 65 years of age (iv) 65 years of age or over (d)
April 13, 1970

how many full-time employees are (i) 21 years of age or under (ii) to 40 years of age (iii) 41 to 65 years of age (iv) 65 years of age or over (e) what is the average annual wage by each of the age categories mentioned in Parts (c) and (d)?


Eric William Kierans: (a)	1966 20	1967 20	1968 21	1969 22(b) (i)	13	14	15	15(ii)	7	6	6	7(c) (i)	1	1	1	2(ii)	5	3	3	4(iii)	1	2	2	1(iv)	nil	nil	nil	nil(d) (i)	1	1	nil	nil(ii)	2	3	5	5(hi)	10	10	10	10(iv)	nil	nil	nil	nil(e)	Part-time employees: Under 21, 3,145.05; 22 to 40, 2,023.62; 41 to 65, 2,448.58; over 65, nil.
Full-time employees: Under 21, 4,637; 22 to 40, 4,896,27; 41 to 65, 5,773,33; over 65, nil.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS-CANCELLATION OF PROJECTS 1968-1969
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many projects of the Company of Young Canadians were cancelled in the years 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many proposed projects for the year 1970 have been cancelled or will be cancelled?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. 1968-69, 2; 1969-70, 3.
2. The CYC has received more than a dozen new project submissions. None of these submissions have been rejected to date although practical considerations could limit the acceptance of some.


NATIONAL ART GALLERY-PURCHASE OF DEGAS PAINTING
Mr. Alexander: Did the National Art Gallery buy the Degas painting "Woman With Umbrella" and, if so, at what cost?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: The National Art Gallery
Questions
did buy the Woman with Umbrella by Degas. Prices for works of art are regarded as confidential by the Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Canada. It was bought within the regular appropriation for the purchase of works of art for the National Gallery within the fiscal year 1969-1970.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD LIBRARY, DETROIT
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the National Film Board Library in Detroit been closed and, if so, on what date?
2.	When was the Library in Detroit opened?
3.	How many films were held in the Library prior to its closure, and how many people were employed there?
4.	How many film bookings were made in each of the last three full years prior to closure?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Yes. January 31, 1970. (Operations transferred to Chicago NFB office.)
2.	July 1, 1967.
3.	1,048 prints of 308 titles. Staff: 3 fulltime; one part-time.
4.	Television bookings: 1967, 173; 1968, 996; 1969, 1,588. Other bookings: 1967, 1,910; 1968, 6,638; 1969, 6,898.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD LIBRARY, NEW YORK
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,336
Mr. Burton:: 1.	When was the National Film Board's Library of Travel Films opened in New York?
2.	Prior to recent cutbacks, how many films were in the Library and how many people were employed in the Library?
3.	How many films are now held in the Library and how many people are now employed there?
4.	How many bookings of films were made in each of the last three full years of operation?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. 1948.
2.	1,438 prints of 335 titles. Staff: 3 fulltime; one part-time.
3.	787 prints of 284 titles. Staff: 1 full-time; one part-time (part of operations transferred to Chicago NFB office).
4.	Television bookings: 1967, 950; 1968,
1,017;	1969,	723. Other bookings:	1967,
18,093; 1968, 17,299; 1969, 16,622.
Questions


NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA FILM &quot;PROLOGUE&quot;
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What was the cost of the film "Prologue" recently completed by the National Film Board of Canada and currently being distributed?
2.	What firm is responsible for the distribution of this film and under what arrangements?
3.	Is the Abbie Hoffman who plays a leading role in the film "Prologue" the same Abbie Hoffman recently sentenced in Chicago?
4.	What amount was paid to Abbie Hoffman for his appearance in this film?
5.	Was there no Canadian actor available to play a leading role in this film and, if Canadian actors were available, who made the decision to include Abbie Hoffman in a starring role and what were the reasons behind that decision?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Approximately $140,000.
2.	In Canada, Columbia Pictures of Canada Limited. A percentage of net profit is payable to the National Film Board. In the USA, Vaudeo Inc., Washington, D.C. A percentage of net profit is payable to the National Film Board. In the United Kingdom, Contemporary Films Limited, London. A percentage of net profit is payable to the National Film Board. In Sweden, Sandrew Film and Teater A.B., Stockholm. A flat fee will be paid to the National Film Board. Negotiations for distribution in other countries are proceeding.
3.	Yes.
4.	$93.50.
5.	Mr. Hoffman appeared in the film because he was part of the Chicago activities and was playing himself.


APPOINTMENT OF JOHN McGILP TO NEW POSITION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Has a Mr. John McGilp (Regional Director of Indian Affairs) been appointed to another position within the public service and, if so, to what position and at what salary?
2.	What were the minimum educational and experience requirements established for this position?
3.	What are the qualifications of the said Mr. McGilp for the position?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Mr. McGilp has been 
April 13. 1970
selected and will be appointed to the position of Director, Community Affairs, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as a Senior Executive Officer 1, which has a salary range of $19,000 to $23,500 per annum. He has been serving since January 12, 1970, as Director of Education in that Department, pending appointment of a continuing incumbent.
2.	The requirements for the position of Director, Community Affairs are: A thorough knowledge of the Indian and Eskimo Affairs Program gained through a number of years' experience at senior levels of responsibility in the Department; A proven ability to plan, develop and implement policies and programs which ensure a political, economic and social self-determination amongst the Indian and Eskimo people; A demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with and gain the respect of native people, other government officials at a senior level, and members of the public.
3.	Mr. McGilp has had extensive experience in Indian and Eskimo affairs, both in the Territories and in the Provinces, and has acquired a sound understanding of the social, economic and educational needs of the Indian and Eskimo people. He has also proven, in a number of assignments at increasing levels of responsibilities, his managerial and representational capabilities.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-STATISTICS CONCERNING MAIL OF FOREIGN ORIGIN
Mr. Rodrigue: Has the Post Office Department any statistics concerning mail of foreign origin carried by the Department and, if so (a) what is the volume of such mail (b) what is the cost of delivery?


Eric William Kierans: (a) Information not available; (b) Information not available.


MARQUETTE CONSTITUENCY-POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): What new post office construction is planned in the constituency of Marquette for the fiscal year 1970-71, what is the estimated cost of each building and where will they be located?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: New Post Offices are planned at Oak-burn and Sandy Lake. A new post office is

April 13, 1970

planned at Carberry under build-to-lease arrangements. Post office accommodation will be included in a new Public Building planned for construction at Minnedosa. Additional accommodation has been requested by the Post Office Department at Hamiota and Neepawa. This is under study. It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before contracts are awarded.


MARQUETTE CONSTITUENCY-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): What projects are planned by the Department of Public Works, where will each be located and what is the estimated cost of each for the fiscal year 1970-71 in the constituency of Marquette?


Arthur Laing: Location	Project
Birtle	Post Office, painting and repairs
Rapid City Post Office, painting Rivers Post Office, repairs Shoal Lake Public Building, repairs
Upgrading (paving) of the Trans-Canada Highway: From Provincial Trunk Highway No. 4 west of Portage La Prairie to Austin- 22 miles. From north of Carberry to Brandon -22 miles.
The Department of Public Works plans to do the following work for other departments which will provide the funds:
Russel, Alterations to R.C.M.P. Detachment Quarters.
Riding Mountain National Park (for Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) Upgrading Survey of Highway 10.
It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before contracts are awarded.


APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR LICENCES FROM PATENT COMMISSIONER
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	What applications have been received under the Revised Patent Act for licences from the Patent Commissioner to manufacture or import and sell patented drugs up to the end of February, 1970?
2.	What applications have been approved or refused by the Patent Commissioner?
3.	What reasons were given for those drug patent applications that have been rejected?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Up to the end of
February 1970 the Commissioner of Patents
Questions
has received, under the Revised Patent Act, 62 applications for licences, of which 5 are applications to manufacture and sell patented drugs, and 57 are applications to import and sell patented drugs.
2. The Commissioner has issued to Micro Chemicals Limited of Toronto, Ontario a licence under patents registered in the name of Hoffmann-La Roche Limited to manufacture and sell the drug Diazepam. The Commissioner has issued detailed decisions to grant licences to import and sell drugs on five applications, as follows: (1) To Novopharm Limited of Scarborough, Ontario, a licence under patents registered in the name of Hoffmann-La Roche Limited to import and sell the drug Chlordiazepoxide Hydrochloride. (2) To Frank W. Horner Limited of Montreal, Quebec a licence under patents registered in the name of Hoffmann-La Roche Limited to import and sell the drug Diazepam. (3) To Sterilab Corporation Limited of Rexdale, Ontario a licence under a patent registered in the name of Etablissements Clin-Byla to import and sell the drug Acepromazine Maleate. (4) To Sterilab Corporation Limited of Rexdale, Ontario a licence under a patent registered in the name of Chas. Pfizer & Co. Inc. to import and sell the drug Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride. (5) To Novopharm Limited of Scarborough, Ontario a licence under a patent registered in the name of Chas. Pfizer & Co. Inc. to import and sell the drug Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride.
The Commissioner has so far refrained from issuing these 5 licences because his jurisdiction to grant licences to import and sell patented drugs has been questioned in an action before the Supreme Court of Ontario.
The Commissioner has decided to grant interim licences to the applicants in the first three of the above-listed applications. These interim licences will be issued in the course of the next few days when the applicants have complied with the statutory requirement to file a guarantee bond with the Commissioner.
Processing of all applications is being proceeded with as quickly as possible so that compulsory licences in all appropriate cases will issue automatically when the courts decide the Commissioner's jurisdiction to do so is upheld.
3. The Commissioner has refused to grant to Sterilab Corporation Limited of Rexdale, Ontario, a licence to import and sell the drug Hydrocortisone Sodium Succinate under a

April 13, 1970
Questions
patent registered in the name of the Upjohn Company, for the reason that Sterilab's application failed to meet the statutory requirements. Sterilab later filed a corrected application, which was accepted for consideration.


LAKE MANITOBA-ESTABLISHMENT OF BEACH PARKS
Mr. Simpson: 1.	In what areas were the three small beach parks established on Lake Manitoba as indicated at page 27 of the 1968-69 Annual Report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	What were the total amounts of federal government moneys spent on each of these beach parks?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Lili Bay, The Narrows, and Steep Rock.
2. Nil. Through an editing error the Department's Annual Report indicated that these parks had actually been established, whereas it should have indicated only that preliminary investigative work was done and a decision taken that parks should be developed at these sites. Since the preparation of the report, there has been a further decision that work on the parks will not be done as a part of the Interlake Fred Plan but will be carried out by the provincial government in the future.


DESIGNATED AREA PLANTS CONTROLLED OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many companies, building plants in designated areas, are controlled outside of Canada?
2.	How many are Canadian companies?
3.	What was the cost in dollars for machinery and equipment purchased outside of Canada by companies controlled outside of Canada?
4.	What was the cost in dollars of machinery and equipment purchased in Canada by foreign subsidiaries?
5.	What percentage of machinery and equipment was obtainable in Canada at competitive prices?


Yves Forest: 1 to 5. Information in the form requested is not required by any Act of Parliament and is not available.


CPR EMPLOYEES' SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
Mr. Broadbent: 1. What were the total wage and salary payments made by Canadian Pacific to its Railway employees for each year since 1960?

2.	What were the total wage and salary payments made by CPR to its employees whose wages and salaries were determined by collective agreement for each year since 1960?
3.	What were the total wage and salary payments made by CPR to its employees whose wages and salaries were determined other than by collective agreement?
4.	(a) What was the average number of employees of CPR for each year since 1960 (b) what was the average number of employees of CPR covered by collective agreements in each year since 1960?
5.	(a) What were the average annual earnings of employees of CPR covered by collective agreements in each year since 1060 (b) what were the average annual earnings of employees of CPR not covered by collective agreements?
6.	What were the actual amounts, included in direct payments to employees, for vacation pay, for general holidays, for sick leave and for personal leave and what proportion of total labour costs do these amounts represent?
7.	What were the actual amounts paid by the Company each year since 1980 or since the inception of the Job Security Agreements into the Job Security Fund and what proportion did this amount represent of total labour costs?
8.	What was the Company's contributions to benefit plans including pension plans, to health plans including provincial medicare plans, for each year since 1960, and what proportion do these amounts represent of total labour costs?
9.	Assuming a definition of total labour costs to be all direct and indirect payments to employees including the Company's contributions to Workmen's Compensation, to Unemployment Insurance and to the Canada Pension Plan, what proportion of total costs were represented by labour costs for each year since 1960?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: Information available in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is given below. However, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not collect sufficient data on this company to enable it to answer all parts of this question.
1.	Total Wage	Total <b>
1960-	236,992,448
1961-	237,986,698
1962-	235,427,071
1963-	241,510,710
1964-	252,548,307
1965-	259,083,588
1966-	264,030,424
1967-	281,014,322
1968-	282,635,670
1969-	(not yet available)
<a>
Excludes express, communications and highway transport (rail) operations. Amounts
April 13, 1970	COMMONS
charged to capital, stores, etc., are included along with amounts charged directly to operating expenses.
<b) Retroactive wage payments applicable to prior years are included in the year in which payment was actually made.
2.	No data re unionized or non-unionized employees collected.
3.	No data re unionized or non-unionized employees collected.
4.	(a) Average number of railway employees:	1960,	54,307;	1961, 51,213;	1962,
50,123; 1963, 49,895; 1964, 50,272; 1965, 48,598; 1966, 46,797; 1967, 45,250; 1968, 41,499. (b) Not available.
5.	(a) Not available; (b) Not available.
6.	Details requested are not available. Following are percentages of hours paid for and not actually worked. 1960, not reported; 1961, not reported; 1962, not reported; 1963, not reported; 1964, 7.0; 1965, 7.7; 1966, 9.0; 1967, 9.5; 1968, 10.0.
7.	Not available.
8.	Contributions to pension plans include
Canada and Quebec Pension Plans since 1966: 1960, 22,220,659; 1961, 22,914,841; 1962, 23,692,874;	1963, 24,491,961;	1964, 25,247,313;
1965, 26,144,153; 1966, 30,221,674; 1967, 31,073,513; 1968, 31,826,722.
Contributions to health and welfare plans are not available.
Total labour costs are not available, as not all indirect costs are reported to DBS.
9.	Not available as indirect costs are not all available to DBS.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE AT ST. BENJAMIN
Mr. Rodrigue: Is it the intention of the government to construct a post office at St-Benjamin in the constituency of Beauce during the fiscal year 1970-71 and, if so, (a) have tenders been called (b) when will work begin?


Arthur Laing: No.


VESSEL &quot;MT MATHA AMYTOS&quot;
Mr. Dumont: 1 Was the vessel MT Matha Amytos registered in Cyprus?
2. Did this vessel take on a cargo of naphtha at the Russian port of Tuarge and, if so, for which company was the cargo delivered at Quebec City? 22218-19
DEBATES	5769
Orders for Returns


Yves Forest: 1. Information not available.
2. No.


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.-ALTERATIONS TO DOMINION BUILDING
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Are changes now being made to the windows in the Dominion Building at Charlottetown and, if so (a) has a contract been let for these changes (b) who is the contractor (c) what is the contract price?
2.	If a contract for the changes has not been awarded, who has been engaged to do the necessary work and what is the estimated cost?


Arthur Laing: 1. (a) Yes; (b) Macotta of Canada Limited, Rexdale, Ontario; (c) $24,589.
2. Not applicable.


P.E.I.-CONSTRUCTION OF HARBOUR FACILITIES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the amount to be expended by the Department of Public Works in the maintenance and construction of harbour facilities in Prince Edward Island for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971?
2.	What is the location of the harbours and the anticipated amount to be expended at each?


Arthur Laing: 1. $787,000 subject to the approval of parliament.
2. Alberton, Charlottetown, Graham's Pond, Miminegash, Naufrage, North Lake, Skinner's Pond, Souris, Summerside, Tignish, Wood Island.
It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before contracts are awarded.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What expenditures for federal public buildings will be made in the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 in (a) each province (b) each major city?
2.	What expenditures in this area are contemplated for 1970-71?
Return tabled.

April 13, 1970
Orders for Returns


CANADA GRAINS COUNCIL
Mr. Burlon: 1.	What are the names of the Chairman and members of the Canada Grains Council and on what date was each appointed and when does the appointment expire?
2.	What committees and other subsidiary bodies have been appointed by the Canada Grains Council and what is the name and address of each member of such body?
3.	What special studies have been undertaken by the Canada Grains Council and in each case, who is undertaking the study?
4.	What matters have been referred to the Canada Grains Council and by whom was each such matter referred?
5.	What is the source of financing for the Canada Grains Council and what amount has been received from each such source since its formation?
6.	What are the terms of reference and authority for the Canada Grains Council?
7.	What reports or studies have been completed by the Canada Grains Council since its formation and to whom was the report submitted?
8.	How many meetings of the Canada Grains Council have been held since its formation and on what date was each such meeting held?
Return tabled.



Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many times, and in what locales, has the Canada Grains Council met to date?
2.	What is the total cost of financing the operations of the Council from the date of its inception to December 31, 1969?
3.	Are copies of the proceedings obtainable?
4.	Does this Council submit an annual report to Parliament and, if so, wrhen will the Council table its first report?
5.	What concrete measures has the Council recommended and effected to deal with the problems as outlined in its terms of reference?
6.	Who are the members of the Grains Council and what was paid to each member in salaries and/or per diem allowances and expenses to December 31, 1969?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN PROGRAM TIME, DECEMBER 1959, 1964 AND 1969
Mr. Orlikow: What is the difference in hours of program time of Canadian produced programs in any one week of prime time (between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.) during the month of December in the years 1959, 1964 and 1969?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO UNIVERSITY OF SHERBROOKE
Mr. Gervais: 1.	What amounts of money has the federal government paid directly or indirectly to the University of Sherbrooke, to date?
2.	In particular, what sums have been paid directly or indirectly to the Faculty of Medicine, to date?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION-VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO
Mr. Isabelle: What is the value in dollars of the federal properties within (a) Ontario (b) Quebec, comprising the area described by the National Capital Commission Act?
Return tabled.


INFRACTIONS UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT OR CRIMINAL CODE, SECTION 411 OR 412
Mr. Orlikow: Since January 1, 1939, have any persons or corporations been fined for infractions of the Combines Investigation Act or section 411 or 412 of the Criminal Code and, if so, (a) what are the names of the persons or corporations so fined (b) what was the amount of the fine in each case (c) when was the fine imposed (d) what infractions occasioned the fine?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in light of criticisms of the Auditor General made outside the House by members of his government, he could indicate that his government has confidence in the Auditor General and, if his answer is yes, will he request the members of his government to stop expressing non-confidence in the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has confidence hi the Auditor General. Within his terms of reference he is a watchdog-
April 13. 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Who does the interpreting? The Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -over government spending. We And that this is a very important function, but of course when the Auditor General embarks upon the area of criticizing government policy we feel he is impinging on the rights and duties of the opposition, which perhaps they do not fulfil very well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, knowing that the President of the Treasury Board was a deputy minister when a former Auditor General found some fault with some horses on the payroll I can understand the sensitivity about the matter, but I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the view expressed by the President of the Treasury Board that it would be preferable to have another kind of person as Auditor General constitutes government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that that is a correct quotation, I cannot say that this is government policy. I would assume that if that was said it might be interpreted to mean we want another type of function fulfilled by the person who is fulfilling the job now, not some other person.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One final supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether these statements by the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Privy Council, and the refusal of the Treasury Board to grant the salary classifications requested by the Auditor General for members of his staff so that he can retain the kind of staff he feels he needs to satisfy his obligations to this House, all constitute deliberate harassment of the Auditor General with a view to provoking his resignation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Auditor General has a thick enough skin that he would not call this harassment.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As stated in those terms, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government feels it should be the sole arbiter and interpreter of what are the functions and duties of the Auditor General, who is an officer of Parliament and not of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General is responsible to Parliament and it will be for Parliament, in the way it desires, to judge his conduct. That will take place in due course. Government members are also Members of Parliament. The opinions as related to me which were expressed by the two ministers of the government had to do not with the function of the Auditor General in checking the accounting procedures of the government with a view to certifying whether or not they are honest and adequate and whether they are proceeded with with proper probity, but with that other function, that of criticizing policy, that of criticizing government decisions, which I think is not one for the Auditor General but for the opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: He has never criticized
policy.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister has indicated that the Auditor General has criticized government policy and as the words used by the Auditor General which have been criticized by the President of the Treasury Board and by the government House Leader did not indicate any criticism of government policy, would the Prime Minister indicate what policy the Auditor General is accused of condemning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the report comes
before the proper parliamentary place we will be delighted to answer that type of question.


George Harris Hees: He has not criticized any government policy. You just don't like your expenditures being criticized, that's all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for York South was deprived of

April 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry his opportunity to ask a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in answer to my earlier question about him or some other member of cabinet making a statement to the House regarding the way in which the Auditor General exceeded his jurisdiction have a negative answer. He said he would not do it. May I now ask the Prime Minister whether he would advise the President of the Treasury Board to appear before the Public Accounts Committee and give to that committee the basis on which he made his attack on the Auditor General?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider it right for the Auditor General to reply in kind, as in my opinion he has every right to do, to the President of the Treasury Board?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has misinterpreted his own question. The question was whether I had the courage to do such a thing and my answer was that I did not answer this type of question.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister, without any such adjective-I am not interested in playing games with him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You like to play them alone.


David Lewis: I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not interested in playing games with the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether he or the President of the Treasury Board or any other member of cabinet will make a statement either before the House or before the Public Accounts Committee indicating the ways in which they accuse the Auditor General of having exceeded the jurisdiction given him by Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the need for this. The report of the Auditor General has already been referred to a committee of Parliament and, of course, if the committee wants to hear the President of the Privy Council or the President of the Treasury Board they can ask them to testify on this and other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister and members of gov-

ernment are putting their own interpretation on the scope of the duties of the Auditor General. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not true that for some time the Auditor General has been pressing the government to introduce legislation to strengthen the office of the Auditor General and to define, presumably precisely, his duties? I should like to ask the Prime Minister why, instead of proceeding with this legislation, he and his ministers prefer to pick at the Auditor General and undermine his prestige and authority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a question of either/ or, Mr. Speaker. We believe that we will be able to do both. We hope the legislation will be introduced before the end of this session.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. Has the Prime Minister or any other member of cabinet asked the Minister of Justice to have the legal officers check into the facts and law to see if the Auditor General has in fact and in law exceeded his jurisdiction as stated by the Prime Minister?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that is a fairly difficult question for me to answer under the rules.


George Harris Hees: You mean the rule whereby the Prime Minister says "shut up".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reshape the question. I am not asking a question of law, and I ask the Minister of Justice to reconsider the question. Has the Prime Minister or any other member of the government asked the Minister of Justice to ask his legal officers to determine under the statute whether the Auditor General has exceeded his legal authority in the statements he made?


John Napier Turner: I would
think, Mr. Speaker, that not only is the content of any advice of the law officers of the Crown given to the Prime Minister or any other minister of the Crown privileged, but perhaps it is also privileged as to whether that advice has been sought or given.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I quite understood the full import of the latter portion of the state-
April 13. 1970

ment of the Minister of Justice. Is he saying that the opinions of law officers of the Crown are not available to the House of Commons? Only a few days ago did he not speak about a couple of bills before Parliament and say they had been declared to be within the power of Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Annapolis-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is given by silence because it is a fact. Now I ask the Prime Minister, as he smiles and sneers at Parliament in a way that he has not exceeded at any time in the past, what was the purpose or reason for including the word "honest" in referring to the conduct of the Auditor General? Were his criticisms honest? Is an opportunity to be had in order to have the matter brought before the House of Commons? Is there any suggestion in the use of the word "honest" that the criticisms are only considered dishonest because this government does not like them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the right hon. member will check Hansard, he will see that I referred the word "honesty" to the accounting procedures of the government.
I said that was the function of the Auditor General. One of his functions was to check into the honesty of government accounting. As far as I know he has no reproach to make on that score.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister consider that an independent officer of the prestige and position of the Auditor General should never criticize the almighty goodness of this government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Annapolis Valley has a supplementary question and then perhaps we can go on to another subject.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. In view of the remarks he made over the weekend in Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is this a supplementary question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is very much a supplementary question. In view of the remarks the minister made that Information Canada would open further the doors and windows of government, would the Minister without Portfolio check with the Presi-
Inquiries of the Ministry dent of the Treasury Board and talk to his colleagues so that they do not close the door on the Auditor General?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Glad to, Mr. Speaker.



BASIS OF GOVERNMENT CRITICISMS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the government's contention that the Auditor General has invaded the field of government policy based on the Auditor General's criticism of the government for paying out over $180 million to the automobile companies by Order in Council because these companies could not comply with motor vehicle tariff order No. 1965? Is this the basis of the government's criticism? Does the government consider this to be an invasion of government policy?
Righf Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an area of government policy. It may be that government policy is not right or is not effective or appropriate, in which case we hope that we will be criticized roundly by the opposition. But it seems to me that this is an example where there is a criticism of policy and not of honesty or procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts whether we are not now entering the field of detailed debate on this important matter. I hope that hon. members will not suggest that we should, at this time during the question period, go into a detailed study of the Auditor General's report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is a very important point and the government ought to explain its position. I would ask the Prime Minister if I understood him correctly to suggest that the Auditor General is acting improperly in criticizing the government for spending money without any statutory authority by Parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the functions of the Auditor General are those set out
COMMONS DEBATES	April 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
in the Financial Administration Act and not those given to him by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would suggest that we are embarking on the field of debate. I suggest that we recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister dealing with the Montreal postal dispute. Considering that the government's imposed deadline is almost upon us, can the Prime Minister advise whether there has been any recent change in the government's position? I ask this today particularly because of the widely disseminated weekend reports that two of his ministers had gone to Montreal to advise the CNTU to hang on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the government's policy. It is being explained to the members of the union as clearly as possible. We hope they will accept it. As to the latter canard, I have no knowledge of it. If any ministers were in Montreal, it certainly was not for that function.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the legislation just passed in the State of New York making abortion a private matter between the pregnant woman and her doctor, is the minister considering amendment of the Criminal Code to bring about a similar situation in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Not imminently, Mr. Speaker, although we are reviewing the statistics pursuant to the recent amendments to the Criminal Code.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take an early opportunity to outline on motions the government's policy for removing the discrimination between Canadian women who can afford to go to New York for an abortion and those who cannot do so?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resolution passed last week by the United States Senate in which they asked the President of the United States to announce a moratorium on any further developments of the ABM system before the re-opening of the SALT talks in Vienna, would the minister state whether he has approached the U.S. government and backed up the resolution of the U.S. Senate on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to support the actions of a legislative body in that way. I can assure the hon. member, however, that we have been working as effectively as we can to bring about the success of the SALT talks and, of course, on part of those talks depends the question of whether we can stop the proliferation of these massive weapons of destruction.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he in a position to tell the House when agreements will be signed with the provinces on the new special areas program announced in the House last month?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the
answer last time was very, very soon; now it is very, very, very soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The agreements were to have been signed by April 1. May I ask the minister-if he does not agree that this is a very serious matter, the provinces concerned do-if it is his intention to have these agreements signed before the estimates are reported back to the House so that the standing committee may have the opportunity to examine the agreements?
April 13, 1970	COMMONS


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope the agreement will be signed very-soon. It is a mere formality as there is complete agreement between the parties.




Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the suggestion by the government of France that the Geneva Accord powers might be reconvened in the hope that it might be possible to stop the spread of the war from Viet Nam into the neighbouring countries of Cambodia and Laos? Has the government of Canada made any representations to the joint chairmen of the Geneva Accord powers, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, with a view to using our influence to have that conference reconvened for the purpose the French government outlined?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not taken action of that kind. When I was in France the Foreign Minister of that country brought to my attention the initiative being taken by France. Since that time we have had it under consideration to see whether it would be useful for us to support that initiative, but I do not think the multiplication of initiatives will achieve anything.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the International Control Commission Canada has played a role in the situation in southeast Asia. Has the government considered favourably adding Canada's voice to those who are seeking to have the Geneva Accord powers reconvened?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Some time ago, the Minister of Finance announced in his budget speech that steps
DEBATES	5775
Inquiries of the Ministry would be taken, probably during the present session, in view of restricting credit to consumers who make purchases on the instalment plan.
Could the minister tell us whether he is aware of the spectacular advertising now being presented by certain furniture firms, inviting their customers to anticipate the legislation, and could he make inquiries in order that consumers may be protected in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some such advertising in British Columbia; I am not aware of any such advertising in the province of Quebec. I would appreciate it, if the hon. member has copies of it, if he would send one to me.


INFORMATION CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible to the House for Information Canada whether, when the appropriate committee of the House is established, he contemplates recommending or is prepared to recommend that the chairman of that committee be selected from one of the opposition parties?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have the right to make any such recommendation. I think the estimates of Information Canada have already been referred to a committee and the committee can call for the examination of those estimates at any time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of Information Canada and the concern that many in the House and outside have about it, would the minister be prepared to recommend the establishment of an official corresponding to the Auditor General, an ombudsman, if one likes, along the lines recommended by the task force, with particular reference being given to his making an annual independent report to the committee on the work of Information Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, that in particular, was not recommended by the task force, but I would be glad to have any sugges-

April 13, 1370
Inquiries of the Ministry tions from the Leader of the Opposition or other members as to how this review might take place. I am not sure that an information ombudsman would be more effective in the ongoing criticism of information services than would be the work of the media or the opposition. I would certainly be willing to consider any suggestions the Leader of the Opposition might have in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have made a suggestion. Will the minister accept it?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the suggestion and exactly what it meant, I certainly would consider it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: But I should like to know more about how this person might be appointed and what his function might be before I would want to give any answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE OF DIRECTOR BEFORE COMMITTEE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio could not understand what the Leader of the Opposition said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That is no tribute to his understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I want to ask a very simple question and I hope he will understand the significance of it and give an answer. In view of the widespread allegations and the criticisms being made of Mr. Gagnon-


An hon. Member:: By the Tories.


John George Diefenbaker: -would the minister have him come before the committee and place before that committee a biographical sketch of himself?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It is surely up to any parliamentary committee to summon the witnesses it would like to hear and question them as it felt appropriate.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so innocent.


IMPLEMENTING OF THIRD RECOMMENDATION OF TASK FORCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is it
the intention of the government to implement the third recommendation of the task force on government information that the information policy suggested by that task force be referred to a committee of Parliament-not merely the estimate in this regard which will come before parliament on May 18?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I do not think the hon. member has quoted correctly from the report. The third recommendation has been accepted in principle by the government, as was stated by the Prime Minister some weeks ago. The way in which it might be implemented has yet to be worked out. I would appreciate suggestions from hon. members as to how this might be done. I believe the committee should consider the whole question of government information services and how they might be made more effective.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is based on the report that price increases affecting tinplate will lead to an increase in the price of containers which will, in turn, raise prices to consumers purchasing food and beverages packaged in those containers. This situation is foreseen by the Prices and Incomes Commission, and I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to approach the steel companies and ask them to roll back the price of tinplate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: For the time being the contents of the report are being considered by several departments. They will study it before anything is done.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister tell us when this examination will be concluded and when he is likely to be in a position to report to the House as to the action he intends to
take?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Within a day or so, Mr. Speaker.
April 13, 1970


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what he had in mind when he said in the course of a CTV interview last night that he endorsed the integration of the operations of his department with those of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that the regular way to inquire about statements made outside the House is to ask the leader of the government whether those alleged statements represent government policy. Perhaps the question might be phrased in those terms.


George Harris Hees: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall bow to your ruling and ask the Prime Minister-after his rapid consultation with the minister concerned-whether his colleague was voicing government policy when he made the statement to which I have referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, an attempt is being made by the government through its officials to study this matter and come to grips with the question whether or not it would be useful to integrate government personnel working abroad. We have no set position on it yet. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was posing the question and indicating one of his views as to the way in which it might be answered, but there is no firm government policy on this yet.



BROADCASTING


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State investigate complaints sent to members of this House by the Canadian Red Cross, the United Appeal Association and other charitable organizations with respect to regulations by the CRTC which will allegedly come into effect tomorrow and, if he thinks it advisable, will he take appropriate action? It is complained that these regulations would almost completely eliminate the free publicity at present being given by radio stations to these voluntary 22218-20
Inquiries of the Ministry public service organizations which are so essential to the health and welfare of Canadians.


Gérard Pelletier: In the opinion of the CRTC, Mr. Speaker, the probable result of these new regulations will certainly not be as described by the hon. member. If he wants to know the reasons for these proposals, the document in which they have been explained by the CRTC has been made public and he can obtain a copy anytime he wants.
I should like to add only that when the CRTC announces certain proposed regulations, that is the same thing for the Commission as a white paper for the government. This is why such an announcement is inevitably followed by hearings open to anyone wishing to voice objections against proposed regulations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of that reply, perhaps the minister could tell us why the Red Cross and the United Appeal Association of Canada take a view of the regulations different from that taken by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



STATUS OF CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION PRONOUNCEMENTS

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Did I
understand from the minister's answer that the pronouncements of the CRTC are to be considered as a white paper on broadcasting policy by the government?


Gérard Pelletier: Not the pronouncements nor the decisions. I think the hon. member did not hear me well. Guidelines on programming have now been published by the CRTC and arrangements have been made for a hearing on the 16th. Obviously, since there is to be this hearing, we are not dealing with provisions which have been permanently adopted by the CRTC but with the general direction of their thinking on the basis of the studies they have been conducting. The commission has indicated that anybody in the country, particularly, of course those who Eire directly interested who wish to do so, can have a full day in court to tell the CRTC that it is not going in the right direction. I should not like to leave the House with the impression that when a document of that nature goes out from the CRTC, that is

April 13. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry the end of it. Exactly the opposite is the case. Opinions can be heard with regard to the projected guidelines which are proposed by the CRTC.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the far-reaching implications of some of the pronouncements and proposals of the CRTC concerning Canadian content, which will be the subject of the hearing that starts tomorrow, would the minister use his good offices to have the CRTC attend before the Committee on Broadcasting after these hearings have been completed in order to explain these proposals before any final decision is made?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can say the CRTC does not need any encouragement from me in that regard. Indeed, representatives of the CRTC promptly accepted any invitation of the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to appear before it. Furthermore, they have always been happy to do so.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the government considering the introduction of amending legislation this session so as to include tourism under the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John George Diefenbaker: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of a question asked a moment ago. Two or three weeks ago I raised a question concerning Cornwall. Cornwall has now been described as "Canada's worst job-depressed city" and it is stated that in the tri-county area of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry the picture is no brighter, with 13.7 per cent of a labour force of 30,000 currently out of work. In these circumstances has the minister or the government given further consideration to the inclusion of Cornwall under the provisions of the recently announced plan?


Jean Marchand: I know that my deputy minister visited Cornwall a few weeks ago and that this is a situation which we are following very seriously.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A sort of vice-regal visit.


Jean Marchand: If the right hon. gentleman is speaking about unemployment figures, I can produce many other cities in Canada where unemployment is more serious than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We know that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was the greatest admission that we have had from the government, that unemployment in Cornwall has soared to 20 per cent. There are a lot of other cities that are worse, replies the Minister. We thank him for that revelation.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that the Toronto district of his department is currently laying off some 19 people with seniority ranging from 5 to 10 years? If the minister is not aware of this, would he investigate the situation and report back to the House in the near future?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there were some projected lay-offs of employees in all departments of government; I think my total was 37. If the hon. member now tells me that there are 18 or 19 employees being laid off, they are probably included in the 37. We have told these people that they will have priority for returning to the department when we require them.



POLLUTION


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime
April 13, 1970

Minister. In view of the provisions of Bill C-204, which was given first reading on Friday and which effectively passes control over water pollution to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, has a policy decision been made that administration of water pollution control in Canada should be given to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Control is divided between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is responsible for the application of the provisions of the water act, and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question.
Might I ask the Prime Minister which of these ministers is responsible in the case of a conflict between inspectors under the two acts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give me an example of a conflict I will answer his question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House Leader with respect to Bill C-204 amending the Fisheries Act. In view of the importance of this measure, could the minister predict when the bill might be considered for second reading?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this is among other bills which are awaiting second reading stage and to which we should like to give priority as soon as possible. We very much hope that the debate on the amendments to the Criminal Code can be finished this afternoon and that the Canada Grains Act can be moved ahead, along with the National Farm Products Marketing Council legislation and the two bills dealing with sovereignty over adjacent seas. In other words, we hope that by the end of April all of these bills will have completed second reading. With any luck at all, and with the best of co-operation, perhaps we could call Bill C-204 for consideration next week and have it forwarded to committee at that time.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



SUGGESTED PAYMENT TO ALL WESTERN GROWERS INSTEAD OF SUMMERFALLOWING

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that western farmers had indicated before the government's wheat acreage reduction program was announced that they intended to reduce wheat acreage to 18.5 million acres and are showing a reluctance to reduce acreage further by the doubtful farm practice of once again summerfallowing, as advised by the government would the minister consider an alternative method of assisting the farmers to reduce wheat acreage, such as making a payment available to all western grain growers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the program that we have announced is in fact available to all western grain growers. It must be borne in mind that the statistics that were published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, I think on March 18, were based on replies that they received from individual farmers prior to the date on which operation LIFT was announced. We are assuming, and I think quite properly so, that there will be a profound change in the intentions of farmers as a result of their consideration of LIFT.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House how a farmer who had no wheat last year can expect any money from operation LIFT?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-POSITION OF CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was supposed to meet with the government today, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the federation presented its misgivings about the acreage reduction program and also indicated there is an acute shortage of cash in western Canada? How does the government propose to look at those two problems?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture this morning. I am sure that the hon. member
5780	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry either has or will have before long a copy of the submission. He can, of course, interpret it as well as I.


Mr. Gleave:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has just about run out of time for the question period, but the Chair would like to recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar for one supplementary on this point, and then call on the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.



WHEAT-REQUEST BY CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE FOR FLOOR PRICE OF $1.95J PER BUSHEL

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the House that the government will give serious consideration to the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for a floor price of $1.95J per bushel, basis Thunder Bay, for all wheat moving into international trade, in other words, into export markets?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the government has given serious consideration to this and, as the hon. member knows, has gone a long way in guaranteeing the floor price for all wheat, going into domestic human consumption.



FEED GRAIN-REQUESTED INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture and arises out of the requests made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture this morning. Will the assistance made available under the feed grain freight assistance act be increased instead of decreased?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we had a useful discussion about that particular matter this morning. There were two or three aspects of the whole matter to which the federation agreed with us further consideration should be given, including whether or not the policy should be based on the total amount of money or on rates in view of the fact that volume changes from year to year, depending on a number of circumstances. But I can advise the hon. member that we had a very useful discussion about that question this morning.

DEBATES	April 13, 1970
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the third reading of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) aroused my curiosity when he took part in the debate on Thursday evening and pointed out some of the great figures of the past who would have suffered had this particular measure been in effect in their country. I gave this some considerable thought while looking at my own modest library over the week end, and I came to the conclusion that a lot of us are going to be in a great deal of trouble, in view of the types of books we have been purchasing, if this measure is put into operation.
For example, I think that no home should harbour such an insidious document as the Bible, either the Old Testament or the New Testament, because there are clearly chapters in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that would incite hatred against an identifiable group in a manner that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
I quarrelled with the hon. member for Annapolis Valley in my mind at the thought that Jesus would or could be a victim of this particular bill, and I thought of His sermon on the mount "Blessed be the meek". But when one thinks of the disorder that arose as a result of His peaceful teachings, one can only conclude that anything that contained His teachings would have to go. As a result, the Bible would be a sadly emasculated document if it were to survive as a book that could be freely sold and read in our times and contain no passages that would offend the particular measure with which we are dealing.
Then, when story time for the children came around, I picked up a book about Robin Hood. In the edition that I have Robin Hood has some pretty harsh language to use against the Normans who a few years before good old Robin got into action had carried out the Norman conquest. The Normans, I would suggest, were a clearly identifiable group because of race or ethnic origin, and so it almost becomes a criminal offence to have Robin Hood in the House.
April 13, 1970

Examples from Shakespeare are well known. The period during which he wrote these words was the period of the development of English Nationhood, so that is the sort of thing which is likely to lead to at least contempt or ridicule of a minority, if not actual hatred. Even the dictionary would not be free from condemnation under this bill, at least certainly not Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary because he defines oats as something eaten by English horses and Scottish people. If that does not hold out to ridicule an identifiable group distinguished by race or by ethnic origin, I do not know what would. Dickens' Oliver Twist is an obvious example and even the famous six books in the Barset series, by the gentle Anthony Trollope, perhaps the most enjoyable single group of books I have in my library dealing with a life that was somewhat leisurely paced in Victorian England, come under the gun as a result of his reference to certain money lenders.


Mr. MacLean:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that England is world famous for its horses and Scotland for its people?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, I would say England was well known for its horses, just as a former deputy minister was famous for his horses on the payroll.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is just feeling his oats.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Someone else prompted this remark but it is too good to allow to go unrecorded, in case it was missed by Hansard. The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) is feeling his oats. To top it off, my forebears escaped from Scotland at one time and that is why I am in Canada.
Rudyard Kipling took on large masses of people in some of his works during what one would call, the golden age of British imperialism. I hope I am not held up as an example of one breaking the provisions of this bill because I seem to be getting after the British. I was afraid, after my experience with Robin Hood, to pick up other books of fairy tales or Mother Goose stories because heaven only knows what sort of incitement to hatred I would find in them. Seriously, at the time these creations came forth they were written in such a way as to escape trial and attack for some of the feelings they expressed. None the less, they were there for a purpose in their time, and that was to strike out at cer-
Hate Propaganda
tain people or certain groups. I suppose when this bill passes any martial song that makes up part of our singing traditions will have to disappear. I do not know what would have happened to all the Lutheran polemics that sprang up in the years immediately following the first steps taken by Martin Luther. I think they all would have been outlawed, or at least subject to seizure and the authors subject to court action. We would have had no reformation and no counter-reformation if this particular bill had been in existence at that time.
A question has been asked in respect of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf. I would think this particular work could have been dealt with under clause 1 of the bill. I have no particular quarrel with that because that is the direct advocacy or promotion of genocide. If the provisions of the bill were separated, I could quite easily vote for clause 1. It is the other two offences created by the bill which bother me enormously.
A few days ago when I took part in the debate I mentioned some of the soul searching going on in my own particular area with regard to the problems of certain of its residents. I neglected to mention one outstanding incident, namely the visit to Halifax of Sol Alinsky, who is perhaps the chief apostle of social activism we see operating out in the open on the North American continent. This visit gave citizens with grievances a great opportunity to present their views at a very well attended public meeting.
One of the people who expressed his views was a young black gentleman who felt that any attempts at reform that had been made within the Halifax area were not satisfactory. His cure was to pick up a gun and kill all the whites. His answer was just as simple as that, though I have expressed his viewpoint in reasonably modest language whereas he used some obscenities when he expressed it. Be that as it may, it was a cry from the heart of a person who felt very frustrated and ill used, and had all sorts of problems which came to the fore at this Alinsky meeting. In effect this meant, what is the use? Nothing can ever be done, so let us shoot the whites. I suppose he would be guilty under clauses 2 and 3. It seems to me his remarks could be taken as inciting hatred against an identifiable group in a manner likely to lead to a breach of the peace, so it would seem to me, at least on the surface, he would come within the four corners of that particular paragraph.
Yet, I think the most undesirable thing in the world would be to take action under the

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
Criminal Code against that person for what he said, or against anybody else who made similar extravagant statements. If we took action, I think we would turn these people into martyrs. They would feel this was just another attempt to muzzle their expression of thought. The problems about which he tried to speak in his frustration would remain unsolved. The consciences of a few who think that one cannot go around in public using indecent language and making statements of that sort might be relieved by the laying of a charge.
To me, it would be much better to have such a person making complaints on behalf of those who have grievances about houses, about jobs and about opportunities, rather than putting him away. This point of view makes sense, because we all know how intolerant Russia was under the Czars. It is still intolerant but I use that as a specific example of how the terrorist philosophy of Necheyev written on little bits and pieces of paper scraped from here and there, led to the philosophy adopted by Lenin, the philosophy of kill anybody who stands in the way. This philosophy found favour with certain middle class people who did carry it into effect and who did substitute Bolshevik terrorism for the other form which existed before, Czarist terrorism. We know what practical effect that had. That was the result of the imprisonment of people like Necheyev for long periods of time. This illustrates the dilemma you get yourself into if you try to deal with different philosophies by simply saying that those who express them are unworthy to be at large in society.
[DOT] (3:20 p.ra.)
Even if those people, the Necheyevists and the Leninists, were the ones who philosophically backed the policies which brought about the revolution, or even if they took an active part in it, the fact is their actions prove that even the most well-meaning oppressions of thought simply will not work in society. So, as I say, sir, I hope the dialogue in Halifax continues until those grievances are overcome. The mood now seems right for it. I know there are many people who have held discussions as a result of the meetings I described earlier and as a result of the Alinsky encounter. I know they will not be satisfied so long as their consciences are in that state. I think they would take an entirely different attitude if there were not the right of free expression to get issues before the public.

That one instance alone is the reason I would vote and intend to vote against the bill. I do not think it will help the black minority in Nova Scotia to have this bill in force in Canada. I think these provisions could so easily be turned against them if there were anyone cruel enough or with a sharp sense of injustice who would use them. The provincial attorneys general across Canada are all fine, decent men and I suppose no one would quarrel with any decisions they would make under this bill. But that will not always be the situation. We could have attorneys general who would use measures that go against a particular religious sect. We know this has happened in Canada. There have been instances in the past, which I shall not relate, in which there have been repressive measures directed at certain groups within society and the sores from those are still visible. So, as I say, in my opinion this bill would not protect a minority group.
I regret I must disagree with my hon. friend from Hamilton West, who certainly delivered the most eloquent speech I heard in this debate. It came from his heart, from his soul and from his mind. It was a total expression of what the man believes. It was well delivered. He and I share the same objectives. Let there be no doubt about that. We want to see the problems of the black, Indian, Metis or any other disadvantaged people in Canada overcome. Yet, thankfully, in this place we have the right to disagree concerning the best method to bring this about. My friend says this can be done by passing the hate bill and I say the hate bill worries me very much. I say it would prevent the people from expressing themselves about their problems and would not give them a chance to reach out and touch the consciences of other people. Therefore, I say this is a bad measure.
In concluding, the example I gave earlier in respect of the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind. In that example, a man went about teaching that the meek were blessed because they would inherit the earth. One would have thought that message would have touched the consciences of all within the range of that voice, but it really did not. It touched the consciences of some and their numbers have multiplied so that today, most of us in this country are His followers, but not all. Be that as it may, the majority of the people in His own time heard these very mild words and one would not think that would have excited extraordinary passions in the breasts of the people. Yet, had this bill been in effect at the
April 13, 1970



time, He clearly would have come under the section about inciting hatred against any identifiable group likely to lead to a breach of the peace. I give that example as proof that changing circumstances and times can bring about very drastic changes in the attitude one has toward legislation. I should like to think we would make a decision that would stand as a landmark for a long time and which would emphasize the right of a person, as a free citizen, to have his say.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate, nor in the strict sense of the word do I intend even to debate. The debate has been exhaustive and I think largely honest. I have followed it closely because I needed guidance in determining what I should do. I am not myself aware of having been a member of an identifiable group subjected to the despicable activities which this bill is intended to proscribe and punish. Perhaps if I were, my attitude would be different and my decision easier. That is the reason I have needed the guidance. The fact that two members of this House who are members of such identifiable groups have stood in their places during the debate and have expressed opposite conclusions concerning the bill's wisdom and efficacy, conclusions which coincidentally have been opposite to the views taken by the majorities of their respective parties, will I think make very understandable the difficulty which I, and I am sure other hon. members, are experiencing.
As I said I do not intend to debate; but I do feel it is my duty to tell my colleagues and my constituents why I will vote against this bill on third reading. I did not vote against the amendments put forth last Thursday because they would not cure the provision which compels me to vote against the entire bill. I decided that if the bill were to pass at all, it might as well pass unamended in so far as the amendments put on Thursday are concerned. I must vote against the bill because of the rejection of the amendment to clause 267A proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). Whatever doubts I have about the other clauses are not to me conclusive, nor would a recitation of those doubts add to the body of human knowledge. I do feel, however, as repulsive, obscene and offensive as the concept of genocide is and as repulsive, obscene and offensive as any person is who would advocate or promote that concept, that person ought not to be
Hate Propaganda
deemed a criminal unless that advocacy or promotion has some public aspect, however slight.
Just a few days ago we were made aware of an instance here in Ottawa when an RCMP officer obtained entry to a private home when no adults were present and questioned a 13-year-old child. This child, in the absence of its parents, was questioned about things that had been done and said in that home. I can conceive of only one greater internal threat to freedom in a country like Canada, which already enjoys freedom, than a police force imbued with missionary zeal. That greater danger is a Parliament which demonstrates a like missionary zeal to proscribe and punish an evil, whatever the means.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Certainly, it would be difficult to conceive an end more appalling than genocide. It would be difficult to devise an objective more worthy of obliteration. One might be tempted to agree that any means is justified. I cannot accept that. I still hold the conviction that an idea advocated or promoted in the home, regardless of how totally evil it may be, however revolting must be the person who would entertain much less advocate or promote it, no criminal investigation, no criminal prosecution and no criminal conviction should follow where no public consequence has followed.
There are those who say that the concept of genocide is so repugnant that its promotion or advocacy, even in the most complete privacy, must be a crime. It is a tempting proposition but one that I cannot buy. Surely in Canada if we are not to impair freedom of thought there must be some place where every idea, however obscene, however repugnant to universally held standards, can be advocated and promoted. If that place is not in the privacy of one's home, where is it? This bill does not preserve it.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of participating in this debate on second reading and since then I have had the opportunity of doing some soul searching and some research, particularly over the weekend. Certainly, I make no apologies for rising to participate at this time on third reading because I am deeply concerned about the subject and I think it is fair to say that many other Canadians are deeply concerned as well.
I am opposed to this piece of legislation because I believe it is an invasion of the right

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
of freedom of speech. I believe that this legislation is totally unnecessary and it is not in keeping with the Canadian parliamentary, constitutional and political traditions. I further submit that if this bill becomes law, it will work to the disadvantage of those minorities which it has presumably set out to protect. I can only conclude that there is more to this bill than immediately meets the eye.
One wonders just what this government intends to accomplish by making such a law. One also wonders what they wished to achieve by imposing rule 75C, or the official languages act. We wonder what motivation lies behind this carefully laid plan. I have recently wondered about the broad sweeping powers that have been granted to the CRTC, the subject of considerable debate and controversy which is taking place right here in Ottawa at this time. We wonder, as do many Canadians, about the eventual effects of Information Canada upon the daily lives of Canadians. We are also increasingly concerned about the recent attempts to muzzle the effectiveness of the Auditor General by decreasing his staff, while in fact it should be increased, and by subjecting him to a great deal of criticism inside and outside the House. His effectiveness as the watchdog of government spending has been lessened and he has been subjected lately to the threat of being removed from his office.
We wonder just what is behind proposals such as the one with which we are dealing now. I have said that this law, so far as I am concerned, is unnecessary, given the Canadian Bill of Rights and the libel laws in the Criminal Code. When you take those laws into consideration, I say that this bill is redundant. The Canadian Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament and sponsored by that great Canadian and great humanitarian, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). The Bill of Rights assures the rights and freedom of all Canadians when it recognizes and declares "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property". I submit, furthermore, that every Canadian is further protected by the laws of libel and slander as already expressed in sections 246 to 251 of the Criminal Code.
The other day the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) asserted as recorded at page 5693 of Hansard, that this bill,
-is nothing more than a projection of the libel laws from libel against an individual to libel against an identifiable group.

After having done some research on this aspect I humbly submit that this is not so and, furthermore, that this is a phony analogy. I support my argument with the words of a much greater authority on the law than myself, namely, the late Justice Ivan Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada in his 1957 ruling against the notorious padlock law of the province of Quebec which sought to repress the propagation of communism. The following is a quotation of a statement made by Mr. Justice Rand from the book entitled "Leading Constitutional Decisions" by Peter H. Russell:
Mr. Tremblay in a lucid argument treated such a limitation of free discussion and the spread of ideas generally as in the same category as the ordinary civil restrictions of libel and slander. These obviously affect the matter and scope of discussion to the extent that it trenches upon the rights of individuals to reputation and standing in the community; and the line at which the restraint is drawn is that at which public concern for the discharge of legal or moral duties and government through rational persuasion, and that for private security, are found to be in rough balance.
But the analogy is not a true one. The ban is directed against the freedom or civil liberty of the actor; no civil right of anyone is affected nor is any civil remedy created. The aim of the statute is, by means of penalties, to prevent what is considered a poisoning of men's minds, to shield the individual from exposure to dangerous ideas, to protect him, in short, from his own thinking propensities. There is nothing of civil rights in this; it is to curtail or proscribe those freedoms which the majority so far consider to be the condition of social cohesion and its ultimate stabilizing force.
So that at best the aim of Bill C-3 could be to prevent what is considered a poisoning of men's minds, or to protect the individual from exposure to the most scurrilous and vicious of men's thinking. We have heard before, and I said in my first speech, that we cannot legislate against the emotions of hatred or prejudice. Therefore, it is better that it be in the open where we can keep an eye on it, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) just pointed out. Personally, I would rather have my enemy attack me in the open where I can see him than underground or behind my back.
This leads me into my second point, that I do not believe this bill will in fact protect those minorities, which it allegedly sets out to do, from the injustices which may affect those people. It is more likely to constrict and condemn their leaders. I am sure many of you have heard of Mr. Harold Cardinal. I do not know how many of you have heard him deliver a speech or have read his book "The Unjust Society". But I believe it is fair to
April 13, 1970

conclude that in his book, and in many of his speeches to which I have had the opportunity of listening, he does incite an element of hatred. Could he not incite his enemies to a breach of the peace? What about Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln or Joseph Howe? Should these men have gone to prison for incitement likely to lead to a breach of the peace?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Men like Harold Cardinal are angry men. They feel an injustice. They feel that their people have been deprived of the riches that many of our other Canadians enjoy. They feel that they are being disadvantaged, and they feel a sense of frustration and injustice. I ask you, Mr. Speaker is it right that we should take away their right to articulate their views simply because they are angry, simply because they may appear to be somewhat militant, simply because they feel the lethargy of our society forces them to be militant in their modes of expression?
I wonder what Bill C-3 proposes for dealing with the 97 per cent drop-out rate of Indians from school, or what in fact it would propose to do about providing the equal opportunity that is necessary to enable these people to participate in the full riches of Canadian life. I wonder what this bill proposes to do about supplying them with an adequate water supply, or adequate housing, or about providing them with adequate jobs. And I wonder what it could do to remove the frustration that presently exists among the Indian population in Alberta with respect to medical treatment.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) visited my constituency some two weeks ago just to talk about medicare. The members of the Indian community there are very frustrated, and are apprehensive about the matter of medical care. The minister blames the situation on the provinces, but well before medicare came along they had full medical coverage and there were no problems. These are the types of situations that promote an element of hatred.
I am not an advocate of violence, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize that indifference and lethargy sometimes lead to violent words and violent action. Last week in this debate a number of speakers referred to the Ontario Human Rights Code. It certainly is an admirable document, but here again we have to consider its constitutional validity. As far as I can see, it is a declaration of good intentions, and I would be one of the first to sign my
Hate Propaganda
name to such a declaration should it come before the House. But the Ontario Human Rights Code states that its aim is "to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect among our people." No act of this or any other Parliament can create a climate of understanding. No law can impose that feeling of mutual respect because, as I said before, mutual respect comes from mutual consideration and understanding, and that only comes through education and the free expression of opinion.
I wonder how much discrimination we do have in this country, and will Bill C-3 help us to find it ouit? Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can. As a Member of Parliament from an area containing several identifiable minority groups I want to know what kind of propaganda is being spread about them, or is being spread around. I say that if you force such propaganda underground it is liable to spread like an evil and uncontrollable plague, similar to the situation we have with respect to the control of drugs. Certainly our present laws are not going to remove the drug problem. We have all heard the slogan, "Cancer can be beaten." But it can only be beaten if we have a thorough and understanding knowledge of it. I say let us keep the lamented few in the open, where we can see them. Let us not take their advice. Let us not take the advice of those who advocate repression.
This leads me to my third and final point. I believe this bill represents an invasion of our sacred right to freedom of speech. In fact, I suspect this bill is unconstitutional and will be so declared the first time it is tested in the courts. I base this view not only on the Canadian Bill of Rights but also on our whole constitutional and political tradition.
On August 4, 1960, as I said before, this House passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Bill is unequivocal in its declaration and recognition of the existence in this country of the right to freedom of speech, and moreover there are no conditions or limitations attached. Perhaps it might be well for hon. members to take note of the second section of the Bill of Rights which states the supremacy of the Bill of Rights over all other Canadian laws:
Every law of Canada shall, unless It is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized-

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
From that section only, I assume that Bill C-3 must conform to the Bill of Rights if it is to be upheld in the courts. I think, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out, the validity of this point was clearly established by the Supreme Court of Canada last fall in the Drybones case.
Even without the Bill of Rights there is some question whether this bill could stand up before the courts. Parliamentary democracy has always been predicated upon complete and unreserved freedom of speech. As pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko), during the 1930's the government in my province of Alberta tried to limit freedom of speech through a series of acts one of which, the Accurate Views and Information Act, tried to control the press. In ruling the act unconstitutional in 1938 the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Sir Lyman Duff, stated:
There can be no controversy that such (i.e. Parliamentary) institutions derive their efficacy from the free public discussions of affairs, from criticisms and answer and counter-criticism, from attack upon policy and administration and defence and counterattack; from the freest and fullest analysis and examination from every point of view of political proposals.
He went on to say:
-it is axiomatic that the practice of this right of free public discussion of public affairs, notwithstanding its incidental mischiefs, is the breath of life for parliamentary institutions.
I referred earlier to the padlock case and the judgment of Mr. Justice Ivan Rand. I would like to quote just one more excerpt from it, and again I am reading from "Leading Constitutional Decisions" by Peter H. Russell:
-That the scene of study, discussion or dissemination of views or opinions on any matter has ever been brought under legal sanction in terms of nuisance is not suggested. For the past century and a half in both the United Kingdom and Canada, there has been a steady removal of restraints on this freedom, stopping only at perimeters where the foundation of the freedom itself is threatened. Apart from sedition, obscene writings and criminal libels, the public leaves the literary, discursive and polemic use of language, in the broadest sense, free.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Any nation, Mr. Speaker, knowing that its own society is based on certain values, beliefs and philosophies should, I believe, always listen to the voices of dissent and reform. They may be the first voices of the future. No matter how repugnant the message of dissent may be to a particular generation, that lonely

voice could well become the voice of the future. Any nation that stifles dissent or criticism can only experience a past and a present, it has no future.
Sir Winston Churchill said much the same thing in different words, and I quote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary.
It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body: it calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
I submit that we should not stifle freedom of speech in the name of freedom. I know what it is to suffer certain abuse, a form of discrimination. Certainly, with a name like Mazankowski, I know what it is to be teased and to be called names. But discrimination is no basis upon which to stifle freedom of speech. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, discrimination and ethnic or racial hatred are not nearly as bad today as they were 20 or 30 years ago. I believe one of the main reasons for this is the fact that we have had freedom of speech. There has been an equalization of opportunity through education, integration and intermingling. If those who are discriminated against had not had the opportunity of expressing themselves vocally or in print, we would never have moved to the point where we are today.
A considerable amount of emotion has been injected into this debate, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) was very emotional the other day when he delivered his speech, as was the hon. member for York South. I believe that emotion only deviates from the principle of looking at this bill very objectively with a cool, sober and open mind. It is with these words, Mr. Speaker, that I would ask hon. members to search their souls in order that we may vote in the interest of preserving the tradition of our democracy and our basic civil liberties.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not with any sense of pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-3. It is not that the debate has been bitter or rancorous, because I believe that its standard has been high.
However, it appears to me that many members have not taken the opportunity afforded by this debate to state their own views and those of their constituents. I can appreciate their difficulty. The proponents of this piece of mischievous legislation are relying on man's natural good intentions to carry it through. At least one hon. member spent a
April 13, 1970

great deal of his time pointing out flaws and weaknesses of the bill and then concluded that, in spite of all this, he was compelled to support the bill to demonstrate his concern for minorities.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while that argument is attractive, probably because all of us are members of some sort of minority group or other, it does nothing to advance the cause of minorities in this country. To my mind, that argument is a classic example of fuzzy-minded, small "1" liberal, bleeding heart, do-gooder thinking. This is the type of thinking that has, in my opinion, resulted in the very policies which have produced today's permissive society that appears to be getting ready for an authoritarian takeover.
I understand the views of those who have suffered as a result of prejudicial talk and statements designed to bring a certain group into contempt. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made reference to certain actions taken in this country during the second world war. When that war broke out I was six years old. My family lived in a small community and we were the only family with a distinctively German name. Unlike other members of this House I was not taught, nor did I believe, that the second world war was imperialistic or otherwise bad.
While I was too young to understand the reasons that lay behind that outbreak of hostilities, 1 did believe then and believe now it was necessary in all the circumstances that prevailed. However, irrespective of my beliefs at the time I was still subject to ridicule and abuse as a result of my name. So, I believe I have some understanding of the objects of this bill. Notwithstanding its objects, Mr. Speaker, I can only describe this as a bad bill. While the basic argument used to advance it is the one I have already referred to, I am not prepared to impute the same lofty, if misguided, motives to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who must take the ultimate responsibility for it being before us today.
In my view this bill is just one of several devices being used by the Prime Minister to bring the people of this country to heel. What other reason is there for it? We all know the apparent reason for the bill arose out of a vile and filthy outbreak of antisemitism in the city of Toronto six or seven years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, this isolated outbreak has receded into insignificance and is virtually nonexistent today. In other words, there is no clear and present danger in the country to
Hate Propaganda
justify this legislation. If there is, where is the evidence? Does the government have evidence that it has not laid before this House? Does the government have some evidence that disaster is about to befall some racial or religious group in Canada? If the government has such evidence it should have been presented to this House and to the country, Mr. Speaker. If there is a real and present danger to a particular group of people in this country we have a right to know all of the facts so that we can deal with them now.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is not, in fact, a real and present danger to any individual or group in this country because of racial or religious or ethnic affiliation or origin. I will grant that there is a danger to not only some Canadians but to all Canadians. That danger stems from the group across the floor of this House wielding the power of an absolute majority. I suggest that the present government, unable to find answers to real problems, is erecting safeguards against imagined and improbable events of the future. I urge the government to deal with present problems first, and leave imaginary problems for the future, preferably the distant future.
The present government is saying to the Canadian people that they cannot be trusted to develop and mature within the framework of the society that they have preserved and nurtured over the past century. This is an arrogant and authoritarian attitude. The present government did not invent or devise our present form of parliamentary government. The present government does not have a mandate to invent or devise a new form of government and impose it on the people. They have a mandate to preserve the form of government that was handed to them by the people in a free vote. We are considering Bill C-3, Mr. Speaker, because the present government is determined to control and regulate the quantity and quality of dissent in this country. There can be no other reason for such a measure. The present government has demonstrated over and over again that if the people of this country do not like the quality of government they are getting, they will just have to learn to like it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I would venture to say that every ethnic group in the country has been and is represented in the House, and that has been the case throughout most of the years this Parliament has existed. I do not need Bill C-3 to protect me from any member of this House,

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda


Mr. Speaker;: I do not need Bill C-3 to protect me from anyone in my constituency or to protect any of them from me. Apparently, though, the government does not share my views in that area. Apparently, there is a real and present need on the part of the government to secure protection for itself from something or someone. It has been my experience that the government is very much in favour of dissent. The Prime Minister has taken pains to tell us that he is not in favour of controlling or regulating the freedom of the hippies and kooks in their efforts to do their thing. No, the Prime Minister is in favour of dissent, as long as it is not directed at his government.
Could it be, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister feels there is a real and present threat to the government; that his government might be rendered extinct by genocide? If that is the case, I urge the government to let us have the facts, to let us deal with them. I would not want this government to be rendered extinct in such a manner. I want them to stay around so that Canadian voters can render them extinct two years from now. I want them to stay around so that the Canadian voters can vent their anger and frustration on this ineffective and inhumane power group. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the present government to stop worrying about being rendered extinct through genocide and start legislating for the benefit of the Canadian people. Bill C-3 legislates against the Canadian people and presupposes that the government is responding to pressures from groups rather than from the majority of the country's citizens.
It has been pointed out by other speakers that this government has taken onto itself the enormous task of eliminating hate and distrust from our society without taking the people into its confidence and without asking the people to help. This is not the government's problem alone. It is a problem that involves and concerns the people at large and it will not serve any good purpose if we sweep the problem under the rug by passing Bill C-3. In an area of human activity and human emotion where understanding and education are called for we have, instead, an arbitrary measure designed to stifle the very thing we are pledged to defend, the right of dissent.
I urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to get out among the people and see what they are really like. The Canadian people are not bent on self-destruction. The Canadian people are

not looking for ways and means of destroying their neighbours because they might be of a different race, religion or ethnic group. The Canadian people want to build, to create, and to better themselves and their society. I say to this government, stop being so concerned with yourselves and start showing some concern for the Canadian people. I say to this government, stop showing contempt for the minds and motives of the Canadian people and start exercising the responsibilities, as well as the powers, that those people have entrusted to you.
There is one scant consolation to be found in this type of legislation, Mr. Speaker. The present government, by betraying the trust granted to it by the Canadian people, is building the platform for the opposition party in the next general election. The present government fails to take into account that, whatever damage they might do over the remaining years before the next election, the Canadian people will have one thing left: the right to a free vote two years from now.
This legislation may be classified in either of two ways. Some people say, "Don't be too strong in your opposition to it, because it really does not mean anything. It really never will be used; it is just window dressing, a sop to certain pressure groups who feel that it is necessary, and therefore it is all right to let it go through." Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to discuss or vote on window dressing. That is not the function of the House of Commons of Canada. If the bill means something, then someone will be charged under this bill and will be given a forum in which to spread his filth more widely in our society. We do not need that, so I cannot see how anybody can support this legislation on any grounds. I certainly intend to vote against it and I hope that the House of Commons will say that this legislation ought not to be passed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on this very important subject these will be my only utterances, for which all may be thankful. It has been, sir, a most interesting debate, stimulating and wide ranging. Perhaps it has been such a good debate because there has been so much soul searching. I have noted, in my brief experience here, that quite often the finest debates in the House take place on matters upon which there is no question of party rigidity as to the point of view being expounded. I believe, perhaps, that we have too much partyism in our deliberations. I say this as a great believer in the party system, because I believe, as Lord
April 13. 1970

Bryce has stated, that no democracy can function without parties and that parties are older than democracy and essential to it. But there are many matters such as this upon which, I submit, it would be difficult for one to derive a party position.
This issue is not only one of conscience it is, in many important respects, a question of philosophy. Perhaps at times it comes close almost to a theological point of view that hon. members must debate. I think that we do not in this House add lustre to the institution of Parliament or its reputation when we take a party line on every item that comes before us. As one philosopher once said, if there is any large group of people all thinking the same thing, you can be sure that in that large group of people there is more than one who is not thinking at all.
There was obviously much uncertainty in the minds of hon. members. This was clear from the debate, and I envy those who can be so sure of the rightness of their stand or the precision of their voting pattern. I am not in that position. I think I have never been all that sure as to which is the better course of action. I can only, sir, after a long process of reading, study and introspection, come to some point of view, choose my course and vote in the way which I think will contribute to the betterment of our society rather than the reverse. In other words, my resolution does not come with any startling clarity from an ideological point of view, but rather from a process of weighing advantages and disadvantages.
I suppose, in a sense, I have been comparing some aspects of the measure which appeal to me, against some which I find repugnant. I am not ashamed of that, because I regard as one of the great pronouncements on the political process this famous statement Burke made:
All government-indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act-is founded on compromise and barter.
That was said in days, some generations ago, before the word "compromise" had become downgraded in meaning.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Many people are deeply concerned, and there has been much careful study of the bill by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), whose brilliant legal mind and careful research has done much to bring about a greater understanding of the measure and, indeed, a greater knowledge of its various
Hate Propaganda
aspects. There are of course, disconcerting features in the bill. It is filled with aspects which cause concern to thoughtful people. These have been detailed vigorously and brilliantly by many men in this House learned in the law and in parliamentary procedure. Of all the things about it, what distresses me most is the matter referred to by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) the other day in connection with section 267(c). I find this totally repugnant and though I cannot forecast what other people may do, I hope that somehow this particular feature can be cast into the limbo to which it belongs.
There have been interesting evocations of history in the course of this debate. One or two members said the bill would have caught Christ. Others said it would not be strong enough to catch Hitler. So there is a wide difference of interpretation here in the House, even before the legislation gets to the courts.
I do not know whether it was hatred of Christ or the love of Christ which brought him to his destiny but I am sure there have been times in the 2,000 years since when Christian communities in various parts of the world might have found themselves aided rather than harassed by a measure of this kind. The bill makes it hard, often, to distinguish things, because it is not, in my opinion, a well-written bill, but, surely, we must all distinguish between dissent and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. There is an immense difference here. We can go back through history for fascinating examples, but even if this bill is bad it is not likely to cause our governors-and I use the word in its broad sense to mean those who are governing us-to take leave of their senses. Surely, a measure of common sense will survive the passage of this bill; a society without some measure of this quality would not be able to survive in any case.
Another objection stems from the fear in some minds that an orator who stirs a multitude to riot would find this legislation aimed at him while, presumably, the rioters would go free. However, it seems to me that the state is not bereft of power and authority to deal with those who destroy life and property. Nor can we postulate that the passage of this measure would inhibit the state if it came to dealing with riotous and destructive behaviour; it could deal with such offences just as it does, now.
No one has a monopoly of concern for free speech and civil liberties. We all care. But we

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
know that even the greatest of our freedoms are not really absolute. Free speech is not an absolute; it has to be curtailed. Freedom of religion is not an absolute; there are many activities which religious groups seek to carry out and which the state forbids. Freedom of assembly is not untramelled. Just try holding a mass meeting in the centre of some square in any large city during the day and see how you get along. In establishing norms of behaviour for society and in passing laws, we have to make judgments concerning the relationship between individual rights and the common good. As a Jeffersonian liberal, my tendency is always to give first place to the former, to the rights of the individual, but sometimes we have to surrender a measure of individual rights for the good of the generality of society. This is what civilized community living is about. I believe that in the long run the right to promote and incite hatred is not one which can be regarded as among our inalienable rights. We cannot, of course, by legislation remove hatred from the hearts of men, or successfully implant love therein. But we can say, I believe, with some hope of success, that hatred shall not be activated against other sectors of society in the manner in which this bill, albeit inadequate, seeks to describe.
There are signs enough that there still are great dangers from the dissemination in Canada of hatred directed toward identifiable groups. We are not immune from activist prejudice. Far from it, alas. It cannot be argued that because certain long depressed groups are now taking the place in society which they have always deserved means there is no danger of grave problems arising here. It is the sad history of race and group prejudice that the backlash is often most vicious when long ascendant groups feel themselves threatened by a recently emancipated group.
While I am concerned about certain of these provisions, I feel that in addition to understanding and studying the laws they pass, legislators should also consider the spirit of those laws. The philosopher Montesquieu dealt with this question a long time ago in memorable words which are still of value to people today. We must note the relationship between mores and the law, and, indeed, between morals and the law. So, I look not only at the contents of this bill but also at its intent. Having done so, I am prepared to support the bill-not that it is a perfect one, far from it, but, rather, because we are an imperfect society. While I am always an optimist
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
and always a progressivist, I do not believe in the perfectability of human nature. Not in my time nor in the time of anyone here will we reach a situation wherein kings will be philosophers and parliamentarians, saints.
Though we would long to live in a society where hatred did not exist and in which there would be no need to restrain the outpouring of hatred, we do not, alas, live in such a society. This being the case, I do not believe we are proposing a backward step-indeed, I hope it is a helpful step-to declare that the espousal of group-directed hatred is an evil thing which our society thus formally, and in this manner, should and must condemn.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did say when I was speaking on the report stage, that I did not intend to take part in the debate on third reading. I shall try to preserve the spirit of that promise to the House, but certain things have been said in this debate which I feel it is my responsibility to answer. Since I believe the interpretation placed on some of the things I said has been misleading, I trust hon. members will bear with me for a few minutes.
Today, I wish to discuss five aspects of this subject. I want to consider the many references made to minorities, and in doing so I intend to mention the work of the committee. I wish to talk about the constitutional aspect of the bill-I think this legislation is unconstitutional and should be included among the subjects considered by the Supreme Court of Canada for decision in this connection. I wish to deal, in particular, with a point which I made during my first speech in reference to this measure, and repeated subsequently. I wish to discuss the contention that a defence available under one section does not exist under another. I am referring to that clause that gives the right to somebody to take out a simple affidavit on reasonable belief and seize literature. Then, you have to come in and defend yourself. That sounds something like the Spanish inquisition.
o (4:20 p.m.)
My first point is this. We have heard a lot about minorities. Canada, if it means anything, means that it consists of groups of minorities of various nationalities and various religions and environments who came here to have freedom. I am not a parliamentarian, or a lawyer for that matter, who believes that we could in these instances, using the words of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), implement and legislate division.
April 13. 1970

1 said in my speech that if this bill does anything, to the best of my legal understanding and I believe to the best of the legal understanding of the best constitutional lawyers-I do not include myself in this category but I have discussed it with them-the bill will likely work, as I will point out, against minorities in Canada.
Just on that point, surely if we are to build a nation and a just society, the great thing that Canada is 100 years after confederation, we must forget whether we are Polish, or German, or Scottish, or English, or Irish-


John Napier Turner: Or Welsh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, or Welsh-or whether our religion is Jewish, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Hindu or any of the others, and simply be people who work together, who understand the cultural environment that we have here, and build a nation as Canadians.
I am tired of hearing about people who cry and wring their hands about minorities. I realize there has been abuse in the past, particularly in the case of certain names. Here, I mention the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He is a good friend of mine, and I refer to his name, Mazankowski, only in the metaphorical sense because I know I am not allowed to refer to him in the House by his name. He said that people had referred to his name.
I have also experienced that sort of abuse in this environment. I come from British stock, three generations Canadian. The first thing my grandfather and father saw when they arrived in the city of Saskatoon (1903)- and I use this as an analogy only-was a notice that said: "No Englishmen need apply". I do not know whether it was because they were so urbanized that they could not ruralize, though I think that was my grandfather's and my father's problem; they could never get into the rural atmosphere.
My father wanted to escape the pavement, but when he got into the rural atmosphere he did not know whether to plant posts or plant potatoes when using a post auger. These people were not wanted because they were no use to the development of Canada in the materialistic approach used in the pioneering days, and as a result you saw these signs saying that no Englishmen need apply. I suppose that disturbed him. When I was sent to a rural school dressed in brown velvet with shining buttons, these ruralites really took me on, and I do not blame them. It did me no
Hate Propaganda
harm. As Shakespeare said, "Sweet are the uses of adversity which, ugly and venomous like a toad, wears yet a precious jewel in his head". Only in adversity do we build character, so let us not get all drippy over the subject of minorities because we have all suffered together in building a great nation- Canada. Bringing the culture of all of us together with understanding and education is the only way, to my mind, that we will continue to build a great nation. We should not legislate division.
With that introduction I should now like to refer to one of the problems in the debate at this stage of third reading. I am one of those who, when the rule changes went through the House of Commons, questioned two particular rule changes. I used all the ability at my command, both in my party and in the House of Commons, to stop them. Firstly, I still maintain that the power of this institution lies in the power it held over the purse strings. When the government took the power over the purse strings away from this House and assigned it to a committee, we lost power.
Secondly, I do not say that every bill should be studied in the committee of the whole clause by clause, but our system of studying bills has been completely reformed. I think most people here-and I am getting a little unkind in this regard-are followers, not leaders. Some people are so frightened of the medium of communication that if they read a bad editorial they run and hide. If somebody says that Parliament must be reformed, they say: "That is what you have to do because votes cannot be won." We must lead. When we cease to lead, the medium of communication has to step in and lead for us. Because this bill goes to the very root of human and civil rights of Canadians, it should have come before the House of Commons and been studied clause by clause.
What is the weakness of the committee system? We have a fairly good legal affairs committee, though I will have something to say about how unprejudiced and prejudiced it was at certain times. The number of Conservatives who attended the committee was limited, as was the number of Liberals, New Democrats and Creditistes. Perhaps there was only one Creditiste on the committee, and he would have to go back to his caucus and, with all his wisdom, tell them what was in the bill. Most members of parties attached to the House of Commons are so busy that you would be lucky to have an important piece of legislation like this discussed at one or even

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
half a caucus meeting. So, we are into this debate today, and I say with the greatest respect-and this may be why the interest is waning-that our knowledge of it is not as good as it might have been. We should have studied this bill clause by clause. I would have liked to have seen what would have happened when the House, in committee of the whole, reached section 267C, the provision about seizing documents. There would have been a filibuster and we would have killed it.
I say that this particular section is unconstitutional. If we want to streamline our committee system, that is fine. Hitler streamlined things, and so did Mussolini. I know the minister does not like this, and the people who want rule changes shake their heads. But I would remind the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I have the right to say what I have said, and I will continue to say it.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question. No one is disputing his right to say anything in this House, but would it not have been open to any member, in accordance with the new rules, to submit an amendment at the report stage 24 hours before debate began and without any limitation whatever?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are members who are listening to me now in this House who know nothing of the contents of this bill. There is where I find fault with the new committee system.
Let me now come to the second point I want to make with reference to the constitutionality of the bill itself. Before I do that there is perhaps another point I should make.
I want to go along with what the minister is recorded as having said at page 5552 of Hansard for Monday, April 6. He said:
It purports, on the face of it, to eliminate a few lines of the bill. But what it does is truncate and absolutely vitiate the bill, and if adopted by the House would kill the bill. I do not think we can prevaricate about that. That is exactly what it will do.
He was referring to the purpose of the amendment. In that regard the minister and I are on fair, square and just grounds. He is correct.
I want to refer specifically to one member but I cannot refer to how all members voted individually. In any event, anybody on the government side who voted against the amendment and then spoke from the other side of his mouth against the bill cannot really justify his position. He has either done so from a lack of knowledge of the bill because of the trouble I mentioned earlier of not being a member of the committee, or perhaps because he has some problems at home in his constituency. I leave that for his judgment, not mine.
Let us get down to the constitutionality of the bill. I say at the outset with the greatest of respect, and I should like to have more time to discuss this, I believe this bill is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it goes to the very roots of our freedoms. What are some of our freedoms? I think they have to be repeated, just briefly.
Let me refer to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the famous Alberta statute case when the late Mr. Aberhart, the former premier of Alberta, was introducing censorship of the press. This was not Information Canada, it was censorship. He wanted the newspapers to write what he wanted to read, not what they were writing. At that time they were drawing some pretty horrible cartoons of that particular individual. He was inciting the people against the depression, against unemployment and against economics. Mr. Aberhart would never have survived under the hate literature bill, not if any attorney general was doing his job. Anyhow, he brought in censorship of the press.
Hate Propaganda
What the Supreme Court of Canada said in that case, and I have not time to go into it in detail, was very simple. The judges of the Supreme Court, as I understand them, said that they looked at the preamble of the BNA act and came to the conclusion that there were certain inalienable rights there for the protection of individuals. They said that the British had developed these over a thousand years because the customs of the Anglo-Saxons became crystallized into traditions; the traditions in turn became crystallized into common law, and the common law was interpreted by the courts. This was the basis of the common law in our written statutes, and all of it protected the rights of the individual. They made reference to the Magna Carta, and various other acts. As I understand it this was supported by Professor Tarnopolsky. So, the Supreme Court of Canada came to the conclusion that the preamble of the BNA act had built more than just a little house.
The Supreme Court judges said that all the rights our forefathers fought for, died for and worked for, were protected, and included in the BNA act. They suggested in that famous case, which was the start of the constitutional interpretation, that these rights were in the BNA act and if any act infringed upon them then such act, whether it was passed by this place or a legislature, would be ultra vires. There was a reference to the right of the individual to life. That has reference to genocide and although I suggested taking that part out of the bill, I can see some weaknesses in the Code. I have never been impressed with the idea that we need any part of this bill. We have these rights of liberty and security of person and of property.
A boy or girl who sets out for school from his father and mother's home and gets to school safe and sound does not do so because of the Prime Minister here or the premier of his province. The accomplishment is based on the fundamental rule of law which is based on the common law I discussed. These inalienable rights are spelled out in the unwritten portion of our constitution and in the British North America Act. We have now set up a very fine committee to study the constitution.
When the Supreme Court of Canada decided that first case in reference to the Aberhart law it said, as the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) later stated in the Bill of Rights, that there was inherent the right to life, the right to individual equality, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. How can you have freedom of speech

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
without freedom of thought and freedom of communication? I will have something to say about that. The Supreme Court also said there was the right of freedom of the press.
So, the first decision that came from the Supreme Court of Canada found that the BNA act was not a dry old document, but included all the inalienable rights I have talked about which are found now in the Bill of Rights and are now part of the statutes of Canada by interpretation. I will have something to say about the Drybones case in a few minutes because it shows the development in chronological order of our freedoms and the fact that the constitution is subject to the Bill of Rights. These freedoms are written into our statutes.
Let me make the point now with emphasis that I am convinced in my own mind, if we have the kind of judges we believe we have on the judiciary in Canada with imagination and creative ability, this monstrous legal document will be declared to be ultra vires and thrown out of our society. I repeat, it will do nothing for minorities. There will be nothing in it for minorities on the basis of religion, race, colour, creed, individual or group. It does not even mention class, as I said earlier. I say it is unconstitutional in view of the Provisions of the BNA act, and the Bill of Rights.
I say this is the point to which we should direct our attention when voting. Before I go on to discuss the question of law, let me suggest to the minister that he should take this out of our hands right now. He should not again make the mistake he made in proclaiming the breathalyzer law. He should request the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the opposition in this regard is right or wrong. I am getting tired of these ministers who stand in their places and say they have talked to the legal officers and know what the certain law is.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In the Lake Louise case the law officers were wrong: They were wrong then and they have been often wrong throughout the legal development in this country. As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert said, the very men who were drafting the Bill of Rights, according to instructions, argued against the Bill of Rights in the Supreme Court of Canada. Well, lawyers are lawyers and law is not an exact science. I am making this point: take this legal monstrosity and find out whether it is constitutional. However,

but do not stand up please and tell me that it is constitutional because you have spoken to somebody.
We found out how good the legal officers were today when we wanted to ascertain whether or not the Auditor General had exceeded his jurisdiction. The minister said it was a bad question. He meant to say it was an embarrassing question when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) acts frivolously as he does. The minister is never frivolous; he accepts his job with responsibility. Naturally, I put him on the spot. I wanted to find out what he meant when he said it was illegal. So, naturally when the minister tells me this bill will be constitutional-and I can guess that argument-I say let us get on with it. I say this bill is unconstitutional because of the Bill of Rights. What did the Supreme Court of Canada say about the Bill of Rights? As a lawyer I was always bothered when the Bill of Rights was before the House. I could see how it would affect legislation already enacted by Parliament. What concerned me was the effect it would have in respect of legislation not yet passed. That is where I had a legal hangup in respect to the Bill of Rights.
I spoke to various people about the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada went a long way. The Chief Justice, who has now retired, has answered my problem. What a great Chief Justice he was! He is now retired and therefore I may speak of him. When I was a very young man I appeared before him and was as nervous as a church mouse. I did not need a better counsel because he assisted me when I was weak in argument. He was understanding. Here is a former Chief Justice of Canada who, in respect of the Drybones case, actually disagreed with his brother judges in his Court. When he stepped down he said that now the majority of the court of Canada has found it is the Bill of Rights which determines whether this legal monstrosity is constitutional or not. The Chief Justice said to the other courts that they now have to carry out the rules as set out in the Drybones case. I spoke to one judge, in Calgary whom the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) appointed. He just laughed me out of the office before the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the application of the Bill of Rights.
The highest court in the land now has told the district courts, the trial courts and the courts of appeal they are bound by the Bill of Rights. That is really what the Drybones case is about. I repeat, what a great name for it
April 13, 1970

when one considers the name of the fellow and the fact that he was charged with being drunk; his bones must have been pretty dry! This is what the court said. It was held by Ritchie, Fauteux, Martland, Judson, Spence and Hall that there was no dispute about the facts. They went on to say:

the words of sec. 2 of the Canadian Bill of Bights afforded the clearest indication that they were intended to mean-*
what they did mean. Judges would never accept that they meant what they said. They did not have the imagination or the creative capacity of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of the Aberhart case, as I call it, to apply the preamble of the BNA Act to all the rights we inherited from the mother country when Canada became a country. These people had imagination and creatibility. Thank God we have men of knowledge and their creativeness.
I do not get tied up emotionally on this at nil. I get tied up legally. The Supreme Court *of Canada has made the law clear. In my opinion, in view of the decision on the Bill of Rights, this legal monstrosity would be declared to be a lot of nonsense, and unconstitutional. I listened with great interest to my friend from Hillsborough who paid me a great compliment. He is an historian and a man of great knowledge. Maybe I see it too clearly; perhaps I am too close to the forest to see the trees. This is what the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Dry-bones Case."
-if a law of Canada could not be "sensibly construed and applied" so that It did not abrogate, abridge or infringe one of the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by the Bill, then such law was inoperative unless it was expressly declared by an Act of the parliament of Canada that it should operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Bights.
Now, what is the duty of the Minister of Juntice (Mr. Turner)? Well, I appeared before a judge for whom I have a good deal of respect, Mr. Justice Riley of Calgary. He is a liberal with a small "1". He was a Liberal who was a Liberal. I do not mean the new brand of liberalism. He believes the Bill of Rights, must be applied. What is the duty of the minister if this bill is passed? This is found at page 110 of Tarnopolsky's "The Canadian Bill of Rights". If the minister finds that this bill is contrary to the Bill of Rights, then he must get these officers of the Crown who are opposed to the Bill of Rights to prepare a certificate saying that the hate bill
Hate Propaganda
is contrary to the Bill of Rights. That is his function. Let us read what is said here:
Another criticism arose over a private member's amendment to the old Fisheries Act. This amendment purported to re-enact the old Act, and then it included a clause at the end to the effect that the Act should be brought into conformity with the Bill of Rights. The Minister of Justice was charged with failing in his duty as he had not certified or reported that the Bill was consistent or inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. He replied that he had discussed the proposed amendment with the Speaker and they had decided that it was not yet properly before the House for second reading, and that until that time there was nothing upon which he could report. The time for the report, he said, was when a Bill is called for second reading and is ruled by the Chair to be properly before the House for second reading.
Now, of course, we are considering third reading because the principle of the bill is discussed at the third reading stage.
In the debate on the Fisheries Act and the Narcotic Control Act it became clear that all members of the House might not agree with the Minister's advice that a proposed Bill was or was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
Then, he pauses there and says if that conclusion is arrived at-and it is important to the inalienable rights of Canadians-then isn't it the duty of the Minister of Justice to refer that bill to the highest court of the land to find out. We are not supposed to speak here as constitutional lawyers. We speak here as parliamentarians. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) made a very intelligent speech on this subject. It is not necessary to quote all the constitutional cases he referred to this afternoon. They should give him a law degree.
I shall continue the quotation:
In the debate on the Fisheries Act at least two members of the Opposition, Mr. Howardfor whom I have a lot of respect.
-of the New Democratic Party, and Mr. Carter of the Liberal Party, stated that the new Act was still not in conformity with the Bill of Rights because, inter alia, the burden of proof of innocence rests with the accused-
Let us pause here for a few moments, because I shall quote a great legal mind. This is a person who used to be known as our wheat expert. He has gone to the other place.
In the debate on the Narcotic Control Act, Mr. Martin of the Liberals stated that the denial of the presumption of innocence in it was a violation of the Bill of Rights. Since that time every session has heard allegations that some Bills or proposed regulations are not in accordance with the Bill of Rights, and that the Minister has not exercised his responsibilities-

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda
which he should exercise, and which I say he should do.
Let us apply that thinking for a few moments to this monstrosity. Let us just see how this bill would be interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada or by Paul Martin. If he were seated here he would be eating the Tories out, as he used to do, even if there were 208 of us-chewing us like nails-if he had to put up with this. A judge who is satisfied by information upon oath, just a plain affidavit such as one can swear in certain offices all the time, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda, shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies. I have in my files the Cohen report which is full of copies of alleged hate literature from the United States. When this bill becomes law, will someone come to my office with an affidavit and go through my political files on the pretence he is looking for hate literature when he is really looking for other material? That is the point!
The Supreme Court of Canada, in view of their interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the BNA Act, would declare this bill unconstitutional. I hope I have time to develop this point. The hate law demands that one prove one's innocence. Take this little old picture of Prime Minister Wilson. The other day in the Daily Mirror he was referred to as a poodle dog. They said he sniffs and snorts at the public often and then hangs his head. If one had in his possession some document in respect of an identifiable group, whatever that means, and it were seized, then in seven days he must come before the court and prove he is innocent.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
What kind of jurisprudence is this? What kind of nonsense is it? As an average Canadian, an average pleader and an average lawyer, I cannot believe that any court in this land will hold this kind of law constitutional. How can the minister believe in this law: If he does not believe it, then I ask him to do what the professor said in his book-seek advice. Make sure that it is either constitutional or unconstitutional, let the courts of Canada decide. But the hon. member for Calgary North is not going to approve this bill with that provision in it because I say it is unconstitutional. In any event, the bill would work against all minorities and against all
[Mr. Woolliams.l
people in any place where there is freedom of speech.
Now, we come to the constitutional problem of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Justice Hall from Saskatoon, an able pleader and a great lawyer before his appointment said in the Drybones case:
The social situations in Brown versus Board of Education and in the instant case are, of course, very different, but the basic philosophic concept is the same. The Canadian Bill of Rights is not fulfilled if it merely equates Indians with Indians in terms of equality before the law, but can have validity and meaning only when, subject to the single exception set out in section 2, it is seen to repudiate discrimination in every law of Canada by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex in respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms-
Perhaps the only point which should be emphasized is that the Bill of Rights is far superior, not only superior as a form of document but superior in relation to its use of the words "race, creed and colour". These words have been used by many orators because they are so effective. The bill refers to "identifiable group" as meaning any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Therein lies the difference. On this legal ground this hate bill is unconstitutional and should never have come before us. What a hangup most people have had? Tar-nopolsky said:
In interpreting the Canadian Bill of Rights the courts should not look to the preamble for statements of substantive law.
That is what the Supreme Court did in the Drybones case. You cannot equate an Indian with an Indian, and fancy trying to equate an Indian with a person off the reservation. An Indian could not get off the reservation to come and see me in my house. I buy him a few vodkas and he gets drunk. He is guilty and I am not because we are in a private place. It took ten long years for judges with imagination and creativity to properly apply the Bill of Rights. My main point is that the hate bill is unconstitutional.
Before I sit down I want to make one more point. I am convinced that many great men have had to be radical, and thank goodness they were. We would never have got children out of mines and factories, we would never have got unions formed, nor achieved justice and dignity for labour. Groups that have been separated by colour, or religion would never have obtained the freedom that they enjoy today in Canada if somebody had not incited trouble. That is why Martin Luther King is
April 13, 1970	COMMONS
recognized as a reformer. He incited the people of the United States; he told them about the deep prejudices in the south, and as a result of that incitement change was achieved. The cost for that incitement was his own life. We should take a good look at the clause in the bill which says that everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an offence. The defences under the bill to which the minister referred do not apply. I would like every member in the press gallery to pick up this bill and read page 2, section 267B. The defences do not follow that section; they are in reference to the other section which reads:
Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred-[DOT]
These persons are guilty unless their statements are true. How can you prove whether a religious statement is true or untrue? Clarence Darrow in the monkey case illustrates the point. The section goes on to read: "if, in good faith, he expressed" an opinion upon a religious subject. The defence does not apply to the section about incitement. The hate bill should come to a knowledgeable vote. First of all, it segregates Canadians and does not build up the Canadian spirit; second, it is unconstitutional; and third, there is only one good thing that can come from this bill being approved by Parliament. If a person is charged with an offence, and that person so charged takes the case to the Supreme Court of Canada the hate bill will be declared ultra vires. The people of Canada will then know what horrible legal monstrosity has been passed to destroy the faith of minority groups and our right to speak our thoughts.
I say that without incitement there can be no charge. Read the editorial in the Globe and Mail of this morning. It points out that the past leaders of our national parties who brought about confederation would have been put in jail under this bill. John A. Macdonald and Laurier have stated matters of hate. As long as I am in parliament and changes are necessary, I will incite people to obtain reforms. If, as a result, I cause a breach of the peace and some attorney general wants to lay a charge, I am prepared to be a martyr because one could not give a man a better cause. All great men have accomplished reform in human behaviour and relationships by inciting people. What kind of pantywaists are we?
DEBATES	5797
Amendment to Standing Orders Mr. Deputy Speaker: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto the following:- 117. The Standing Orders shall be amended only by the affirmative votes of at least three quarters of the Members of the House of Commons.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the irregularity or illegality of the motion moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), specifically with regard to its wording.
The motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto the following:
The addition to the Standing Orders of a new rule, that is Standing Order no. 117, is being proposed.
117. The Standing Orders shall be amended only by the affirmative votes of at least three quarters of the members of the House of Commons.
I should like to point out that the motion is not worded in the usual terms: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should study the possibility or the advisability of doing such or such a thing. That motion is not proposing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act, which says under section 49:
Question arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote.
Now if the motion, as worded, were passed, it would mean that the Standing Orders of the House have priority over section 49 of the British North America Act. I think this motion, in its present form, should be declared void by the Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 51 which says, and I quote:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the
April 13, 1978

Amendment to Standing Orders
House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order-
In that connection, one must refer to citation 67 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms dealing with the historical background of that question and particularly to citation 13 which says, and I quote:
A statute regulationsuch as section 49 of the British North America Act,
-supersedes, and cannot be abrogated by, any order of the House to which it applies.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest you refer to such citations as well as to page 228 of Sir Erskine May's 17th edition. Certain precedents are given and then it says:

A statute overrides, and cannot be superseded by, an order or regulation of one House or of both jointly.
And there follows an explanation of that principle.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the motion in its present form is absolutely void, that it should be declared out of order and rejected by the Chair as contrary to section 49 of the British North America Act which stipulates that decisions in the House of Commons are not made by a 75 or 90 per cent majority but should be made by a majority of members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the point of order that has been raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest). I may say at the outset that in this party we have different views and I might not be 100 per cent in favour of my hon. friend's motion, but I certainly defend his right to present it to the House for the consideration of hon. members. The Parliamentary Secretary relies for his objection to the motion on section 49 of the BNA act, but then goes on to say that the Speaker must advise the House of anything that is contrary to the rules and regulations of the House. I noted in particular, when he read that rule, that there is no reference there to the BNA act.
On the other side of the coin I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 71(5) which appears at page 61 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, and which reads as follows:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.

That seems to give the Parliamentary Secretary every right to raise this point of order and to have it discussed, but it seems to me that if, as he himself has said, the issue is a constitutional one then you, Sir, are barred by citation 71(5) from making a ruling on it.
I know that section 49 of the BNA act seems rather clear when it says:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote.
But it does not say what kind of majority, and I can see lawyers, who get more concerned over details than of course I would-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hoped that remark would not go unnoticed. I can see them arguing over the fact that there can be different kinds of majorities. There can be simple majorities, two-thirds majorities, three-quarter majorities and so on. Then we have, right in the BNA Act itself, in section 91, a provision with respect to entrenched clauses that departs somewhat from the usual majority rule. In this, Mr. Speaker, I am not purporting to say what section 49 means but I am asserting that it is open to legal argument, and that that is precisely the reason for Beauchesne's citation 71(5) which protects the Speaker from having to make decisions on a constitutional point.
I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that a few years ago we had a bill, or a resolution, in the name of the then hon. member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Choquette, who wanted to make some change in the monarchy or in parliament's relation to the monarchy. The former hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) objected on a point of order. If I recall correctly there was a debate on the point of order, and Mr. Speaker took the position then that this was a constitutional issue on which Parliament could make a decision if it wanted to, but it was not the prerogative of the Chair to decide on a constitutional question, so the motion was allowed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, irrespective of whether we want to go along with the 75 per cent rule suggested by my colleague and friend, it does seem to me he has the right to present the motion and that the House has the right, if it wishes, to decide by a majority vote on a three-quarters majority rule. If someone thinks that that is unconstitutional
April 13. 1970	COMMONS
then the place to take it is to the Supreme Court of Canada, not to Mr. Speaker sitting in the Chair of the House of Commons.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while I think it is a very interesting point of order which the Parliamentary Secretary has raised, one that can lead to an interesting discussion, one we would all greatly enjoy, I think Your Honour's prerogative in the matter is clearly limited by citation 71(5) which says you shall not give a decision on a constitutional question.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank both hon. members for their contributions, and I will agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he suggests that it is an interesting point of order which has been raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. What I would like to do is to exercise another option available to the Chair, the option to reflect on the point of order, and in the event that this motion comes to the point where a vote has to be taken, at that point I would certainly be ready to render a decision. In the meantime we might proceed with the motion without prejudicing the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that the point of order raised on my proposed amendment to the Standing Orders came as a complete surprise to me. I regard this interesting point, as it has been referred to, rather as a matter of debate than as a point of order. In opening my remarks on this motion I might say that I believe that any sensible interpretation of section 49 of the BNA Act is that it obviously was intended to prescribe the manner in which the House would arrive at decisions on public questions, on matters of public policy, rather than having any relationship whatsoever to the internal management of the House of Commons itself, and the rules under which it should govern its proceedings. I may have some reference during the course of my remarks to what another member of this House had to say on this very point in an earlier debate.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this motion is intended to draw the attention of the members of this House to a debate which took place in this chamber last July; in fact, a debate which commenced on July 7, 1969 and came to a conclusion at ten minutes to two on Friday, July 25-a.m. that is. I mention this to recall to members of the House that we had a
DEBATES	5799
Amendment to Standing Orders very extensive debate at that time on the question of the proposed changes to the rules of the House. This debate, because of its length, because of its fury on occasion and also because of some of the very fine contributions, indicated a crisis about the manner in which this House should operate, and the principles behind the rules of Parliament.
As far as I have knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there have been three principal occasions in the lifetime of the House of Commons of Canada when the question of the rules and the operation of the House has reached what one might describe as a fever pitch. One occasion was last July and, another was during the course of what is commonly referred to as the pipeline debate. These are the two of which I have personal experience. The third occasion was the crisis in the proceedings of the House arising out of what have been referred to as the great naval debates of 1913, and the procedural debate which resulted in the adoption into the Standing Orders of the House of the rule of closure.
Of these three occasions on which the debate of the House on its rules and operations reached fever pitch, the one last July was the most useless, the one for which there was the least excuse. Indeed, it could not have come into being had it not been for the inexperience and arrogance of some members of the present government. The House of Commons had been functioning in a mood which was conducive to a change in the rules by the ordinary method. The procedures committee of the House, during the earlier part of this Parliament, had brought to fruition a drastic reorganization of our procedures. These changes had, in turn, been the result of an extended period of meetings of the procedures committee begun during the period following 1963, when the Right Hon. Lester Pearson became prime minister of Canada.
I should like to recall to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that during all of that period prior to the commencement of this Parliament in 1963, the procedures committee had sat with the Speaker as its chairman and had maintained the traditional attitude that the rules of the House were the property of the whole House and should be divorced, as far as any discussion of their change was concerned, from the hands of the government. This is a position which I believe had been maintained throughout the entire lifetime of the Canadian Parliament with the exception of one particular occasion when there was unilateral action taken by the government of
April 13, 1970

Amendment to Standing Orders the day in 1913 to introduce a motion to amend the rules of the House. This was done without references to any procedures committee.
This sort of action, Mr. Speaker, lives long in the mind of Parliament. I know that when I first came to this House, quite recently really, the memories and echoes of that debate of 1913 were still in the minds of many of the more experienced members of this chamber, even though none of them had been in the House when it took place. The dean of the House then was the Honourable Chubby Power who, I believe, was first elected to Parliament in 1917.
But, Mr. Speaker, the advent of that particular rule, not only because of what it was but because of the method employed to bring it into the House, did grievous damage to this institution. In the minds of many people in Canada it was only overshadowed and faded into the background as a result of the crisis period which developed during the pipeline debate. The atmosphere of ugliness of the pipeline debate had all but disappeared from the minds and memories of members of this House when last July the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) abandoned the standing practice and procedure of this House concerning amendment of the rules, for, apparently, a practice which is still to be maintained. Now, the Standing Committee on Procedure is to be a committee dominated by the government, as is any ordinary committee of the House instead of following the practice where His Honour the Speaker traditionally was chairman of that committee and the Clerk of the House of Commons was the clerk.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the House to give easy passage to my proposal today. Indeed one or two of my colleagues have indicated that they have questions on its advisability. But I very deliberately put it on the Order Paper because I had hoped that when it came up for discussion in the House there could be some quiet reflection upon just what happened last July. Perhaps then the mood of the House would be to think how far we had departed from the tradition and practice of Parliament in the debate which took place then, which included the use of closure to enforce a new form of closure rule. To some of us, this was about the ultimate, except that as the time, and today, more important than the particular subject matter of any of those rules was the state of mind which would allow the crushing mass of an [Mr. Barnett.1
official government majority to force rule changes through this House of Commons. As far as my understanding goes, Mr. Speaker, this happened only once before, and that was during the adoption of the original closure rule to which I have already relerred.
May I point out that because of the growing recognition of the need to streamline parliamentary business, recent rule changes had already achieved a great deal. In the discussion last July there was no argument, nor was there in procedural committees for a period of years prior to that, about the need for change. Indeed, in all the procedural committee meetings in the years following the aftermath of the pipeline debate, no one at all seriously suggested the abolition of the closure rule about which there was such a serious battle at the time of its introduction, a battle that was bitter not only because of the proposed change in the rules but also because of the manner in which it was enacted. The government of the day, led by the right hon. Mr. Borden, decided, in order to achieve its purposes, to force this change of the rules through the House unilaterally. That is why for so many years the mere mention of the closure rule was a nasty thing in the minds of so many parliamentarians, and in the minds of so many people across the country. Indeed, it was also the reason the pipeline debate had the impact on the Canadian people which was indicated in the results of the general election next following.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I should like to refer just briefly to one or two of the things that were said in that debate on the matter of the closure rule in 1913 to indicate something of the atmosphere and the temper under which that motion was introduced. I note that the Leader of the Opposition, who was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was not granted the normal courtesy of the House. He was not allowed to follow the Prime Minister when he introduced the motion but, by a motion that somebody else be heard, the government's majority denied the leader of the Opposition the traditional right to reply to a statement coming from the leader of the government. That was symptomatic of the atmosphere which had been generated in the House by the government. Mr. Borden moved his resolution in April, 1913. I am about to quote from page 8426 of Hansard for April 23, 1913. Mr. Macdonald, the member for Pictou, was speaking, and he said in part:
Talk about parliamentary rules and parliamentary amenities? They have become a thing of the past
April 13, 1970

as a result of the attitude of hon. gentlemen in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) referred to the unconstitutionality of this resolution.
This is not the first time that questions of constitutionality regarding procedural amendments have been raised. The Hansard report continues as follows:
I venture to say that the Minister of Justice will not assert that the Government had any right to submit this resolution in the form it is submitted. What was the position? There being no express rule of this House providing for a method of amending the rules of the House, you proceeded to rule I and found that the custom and usage in England before 1867 governed, and in 1867 there never had been a rule amended except by referring it to a special committee of the House of which Mr. Speaker was a member. Therefore, these hon. gentlemen broke the rules in trying to impose this tyrannous Tory proposition upon the people of this country and upon this House. If any municipal body proceeded to pass a by-law as the Government are passing this resolution, that by-law would be declared illegal and invalid by every court in the country.
The next man who spoke was the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the man who, according to my reading, was the real architect of the closure rule. The Hansard report continues in this vein:


Mr. Meighen:: Would the by-law be also illegal and invalid if it were put through in the way the hon. member wants the resolution put through, by a committee of the House and then passed by the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh, not at all; it would depend on the statute and usage governing the municipality. My hon. friend is at his old trick in making a suggestion of that kind but it will not do. My proposition was that if the proper method to amend the rules of the House was to proceed under the usage of the Imperial Parliament as before 1867, the Government are not proceeding along these lines.
You see, there is the nub of the whole issue stated on April 23, 1913, in the debate on the resolution introduced by the prime minister of the day to put the closure rule into the Standing Orders of the House. The fact of the matter is that this House, in its Standing orders, has never had any rule covering the Standing Orders because, until very recently, with this one exception, it was never considered that it would be necessary to have in the Standing Orders provision for an amendment to the constitutional practice of this House. This is the whole point of my motion. If we are to have a government which adopts the attitude that it can bring any kind of motion at any time it wants in order to amend the rules of this House, then there must be written into the rules some 22218-21
Amendment to Standing Orders kind of protection for the minority of the members of this House. I would much prefer that the rule of gentlemen prevail, a rule sometimes referred to as the rule of the ancient usage and customs of Parliament, the long standing effect of which is that it is unthinkable for the rules of this House to be amended except after discussion and consideration by a committee of which Mr. Speaker is the chairman. The fact he is Chairman emphasizes the fact that the committee referred to is a committee of Parliament and not a committee which in any way is a tool of the government. That, Mr. Speaker, is the issue; that is the point of my motion.
If I could get some kind of assurance from the government that it realizes this was not a proper and orderly method of amending the rules, that it would not happen again, that it was prepared to revert to the normal usage and practice of Parliament and that it would not infringe on the rights of the House, then I would be overjoyed to withdraw my motion from the Order Paper. But unless and until we are given some kind of understanding that the rules of the House are not pawns of the government, I intend to press for something along the lines I have suggested to be written into the Standing Orders. Whether it should be three quarters of the members to constitute a majority is a question that is open to discussion and debate. Certainly, we should not amend the rules of the House at the whim of the government and its supporters in the House of Commons. This, to me is the issue, the fundamental issue.
I should like to point, in closing my remarks, to just one other aspect of our rules. When we talk about the rules and usages of Parliament, let us remind ourselves that while we voluntarily agreed to some restrictions in our rules, up until very recently in the history of this Parliament one dissenting member could prevent any alteration of the Standing Orders of the House. In other words, it took unanimous consent to suspend the rules. If that does not underline the basic principles that I am trying to get at in this resolution, I do not know what can do it better. The fact that one member could say, "nay", after which Mr. Speaker said, "This will not be done at this time", is an indication of the long practice which has existed of protecting the right of minorities in this institution to which we belong and which is, in the last analysis, the keeper of the freedoms of the people of Canada.
April 13, 1970

Amendment to Standing Orders
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe every member of this House shares some of the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. member who moved this motion. All would agree, I feel, that the general interest of the House is best served when procedural changes are made only after the widest search for a consensus and only after seeking the concurrence of all hon. members or, at least, of all the important parties represented in the House of Commons.
However, it has been shown by the history of this chamber, as indeed it has been shown by history at Westminster, that this type of consensus cannot always easily be obtained. During the first session of this Parliament I had occasion to look very carefully at the many changes which have been made in the rules at Westminster in recent years. We pay great attention, and I think properly so, because of the long history of that Parliament, to its rules, usages and procedures. The work which was undertaken in reforming and revising the rules of this House owes a great deal to the experience of our fellow legislators at Westminster.
I found that many of the recent rule changes at Westminster were proposed by representatives of the government party. Many of the most important were passed only after debate and after recorded divisions. On reading those debates and the comments on them I did not find anywhere the suggestion that it was improper for a majority of members to make a decision to change the rules. In fact, what press comment I saw was to the effect that the government had not moved quickly enough or gone far enough in proposing these changes.
My first contention is, therefore, that it is not improper or in any way anti-democratic, or against the interests of a parliamentary system, for the rules of this chamber to be altered by decision of a majority of its members. Indeed, speaking in terms of democratic principle I would suggest it is much more difficult to assert the view that a small minority in this chamber should have the power of veto to prevent changes being made-that a small minority should have the power to paralyse. I do not hesitate to advance this contention. It is a demonstrable democratic fact that the group which is held accountable by the people of Canada for the actions of this chamber is the majority party.
There is no democratic mechanism, as far as I am aware, which can call to account a

small minority which may impede important and necessary changes. On the other hand, the power of the majority must be exercised with prudence and discretion; if the majority acts unwisely, at least the people know who is responsible. If improper action is taken, the people have their right and they can exercise it against the majority. But I say it is impossible for the people acting in this fashion to call to account a small minority which may on given occasions have the power to veto important changes in this chamber.
There is one example which will be recalled by all hon. members. As they know, the constitution of the United States provides that the President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. I suppose there was no sadder decision in all recent history than the decision of the United States Senate not to ratify the League of Nations. We all know in retrospect that this was a terrible decision. The proposal received majority support but not the necessary support by two-thirds of those present. We remember, of course, the words which ring down through the doleful history of our times; the late President Wilson's description of the "little group of wilful men" who frustrated him in taking an action which to a large extent, in the opinion of many people, might have obviated the slaughter we experienced later on.
It is my contention that in terms of democratic principle it is proper that decisions as to changes in the rules of this House should be left with a simple majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: The majority is accountable. The majority will suffer if it acts improperly. On the other hand, the minority is not accountable. It cannot be found. There is no way in which the public can express its views on the inaction imposed by the minority in circumstances which might arise if the proposed motion were passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They could defeat the minority at the next election.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Well, that has been happening for all the elections I can remember. The minority has never obtained the degree of confidence from the public which would enable it to form a government. I say this in no unkindly way. I appreciate the desirability
April 13. 1970

of securing approval for proposed changes from as many hon. members as possible. But I should hate to see us placed in a position where we were paralysed, where we were subject to the veto of minority groups and where we could not act if action became necessary.
0	(5:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he really understands what he has been saying. He says a majority party has never been defeated, which implies there has never been a change in government in Canada since Confederation. A minority has been increased so as to become a majority many times, and the contrary has also happened. Is this not correct?


Duncan Gordon Blair: Certainly the whole nature of our politics is that parties change, that governments change, and I have never yet heard anybody contend that this is not in the public interest. What I am saying is that when particular actions are taken in this House, whether by the enactment of legislation, the passage of substantive resolutions, the passage of estimates or the passage of procedural rules, somebody is accountable for what takes place. Under our present system the persons who are accountable, by and large, are the members of the majority who support the government then in power. If they make improper use of this power, if they act unwisely, then there is, as we all know, a very fast and sometimes overly efficient way for the public to deal with them.
I do not think that the view which the public takes of this chamber is one that should compel any hon. member to feel that we should adopt a procedure which would paralyse us in the nature of making further amendments to our rules. I have said before, and I have no hesitancy in saying again, that the view that the public takes of this House is, unhappily, far from being a laudatory one.
1	think all hon. members, whether they sit on this side or on the opposition side are aware of the fact that the public feel that many of our procedures, notwithstanding the great reforms that have been made, are outmoded, that we still are not in tune with the times and with the necessity for transacting large and important items of public business in time to confer essential benefits on the community.
I cannot share all the criticisms that are made of this chamber because some of them
22218-21J
Amendment to Standing Orders are made in ignorance of the true nature of the parliamentary process. But there is indubitably a feeling in the country that we are-not quite doing our job, and I think that the public at large would view with alarm and dismay any suggestion that further reforms of procedure in this Parliament could only be possible if very rigorous procedural rules could be met.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, of the current view of our Parliament, let me refer to an editorial which appeared in the Iroquois Post for Wednesday, April 8, written by Peter Ward who is said to be a Toronto Telegram, syndicate reporter. The article is entitled "It's a sad Parliament" and reads in part as follows:
Early in the daily proceedings of Parliament comes that 40-minute exchange between the opposition and government known as the "question period". It's basically a time when cabinet ministers can expect to be put on the griddle for their sins, hence that 40 minutes often produces the best news copy of the day.
The question period certainly hasn't been the same since the Pearson-Diefenbaker personality feuds have been replaced by the Trudeau cool and the Stanfield stammer.
The opposition in this Parliament has been terrible. There has been no concentrated probing for government weaknesses, although Lord knows there are many, and very few strong personalities have emerged from the non-government side of the House.
Some of the few opposition backbenchers who have tackled the government have received little or no help from the more august names in the front row, where the occupants seem bent on playing the worn-out game of party politics, forgetting that public opinion has consistantly rejected such shenanigans for years.
The old-liners have lost their credibility.
It is a hard thing for us to accept the fact that this kind of editorial column comment is made across the country about our proceedings, but it does reflect what is a basic view of this Parliament. I suggest that not only in terms of democratic and parliamentary principle, but in keeping the mood of modern Canada it would be a mistake for us to adopt a proposal such as that made by the hon. member and lock ourselves into a position where any important changes in the rules of this chamber could only be made over the power of a small group of members to veto and defeat them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I intervened on the point of order I suggested that I was not completely happy with the proposal made in my colleague's motion. However, in the light
April 13, 1970

Amendment to Standing Orders Of the debate there are one or two comments I want to make. The aspect of the motion that bothered me was the attempt to fix a rigid formula by which our rules would or could be changed. I do not like it being done in that way. I prefer the way that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) talked about, the method that we used for many decades, namely, consensus among the members of all the parties in the House.
Having listened to my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) I gather that it is the view on that side of the House that we should confirm the practice that we have had for a couple of rounds, namely, letting our rules be amended on the vote of a simple majority. If we are going to have a rigid form, then let us have one that protects the minority, and on that basis I would support the resolution now before us.
I would say, however, that common sense tells us that we should not rely on either of these formulas. Let us not have it confirmed as the practice for all time that a simple majority can dictate the rules of the House. Let us not have even a three-quarters majority so confirmed. Let us have the rule of consensus that has worked so well for many years. I am speaking not simply of the history I have read but of the history of some of the years I have been in this place.
I am afraid that my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton confuses two things. He confuses the passing of legislation, the deciding of issues, and all the matters that come before Parliament and which a government that has been elected is committed to do something about, with the rules of this place, the constitution of this establishment, the things that were here when we came to this chamber, no matter which side of the House we are on. It is one thing to say that the government has the right by a simple majority to put through its program after debate, but it is another thing to say that the government of the day owns the place and has the right by a simple majority to change its rules.


Mr. Gibson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) on a point of order.


Colin David Gibson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought the hon. member was raising a point ,of order.


Colin David Gibson: Well, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: That is not a point of order. If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he requires the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
has it, but I think he should ask for it and not raise it as a point of order.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the erroneous manner in which I got to my feet. I wish to ask the hon. member a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go
ahead.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member just made reference to the constitution, the provisions of the British North America Act. I believe unintentionally he gave the impression that the wording was different from what it is. Has the hon. member got the section from which he quoted, because I am sure the words used are not the words that are in the act?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
my reference just now I was not talking of the constitution, the British North America Act; I was talking about the rules, the set-up, the way in which this place is constituted. I suggest that is something that has been worked out by consensus of the Parliaments we have had in the past 100 years, and that no one government here between two elections has the moral right to change that without the consensus of the House as a whole. We have been back and forth over this point. We went through it, of course, at great length in the debate last June and the debate the previous December.
I submit my friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is right, that the consensus way is much the better way. I am very sorry to hear the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton state the position from that side of the House that because they are in power they think they have the right to change the rules of this place. I might in parentheses ask what we stayed here for last July. We stayed around all that month on the infamous rule 75-C which has never been used. Of course, it cannot be used anyway, so we wasted that month.
April 13, 1970	COMMONS
As for this line that is constantly handed out that the public thinks we are not doing our job, I suggest if the public has any dissatisfaction with this Parliament, it is not over the time it is taking on the issues that come before us but it is the absence of issues that are worth taking our time. That is an aside and someone should have called me to order. Back to the issue itself, I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is to be commended for asking this House seriously to consider whether we should not get back to the old tried and true way of dealing with the rules of this House, namely, by a consensus of all concerned, not by the dictatorial action of the majority of the day.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, you have postponed your decision on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and I suggest that the issue might be a constitutional one. It seems obvious to me that the motion, as introduced by the hon. member, is quite illegal and void if you consider the very clear provisions of the British North America Act, because it does not express a desire or a wish. It should have been worded as motions of this kind usually are: that, in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of amending the Standing Orders so that they could not be changed except by an affirmative vote of a certain number of members.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary is obviously reviving the point of order he raised at the outset. I should like to point out to Your Honour that I did have consultations as to the drafting of this motion. It is not, as most motions are, a request that Parliament ask the government to consider the advisability of doing something. This motion is, quite properly, the property of the members of this House, not of the government.
If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to debate this point of order, he should recognize that my motion would not have appeared in this form had it not been the proper form for a subject matter of this kind. Questions as to the form of a motion are checked with the proper people before a motion is put on the Order Paper. I am not asking the government to consider the advisability of anything; I am asking the members of this House-and this is my point of order-to consider a proposal to amend the rules of the House.
DEBATES	5805
Amendment to Standing Orders [Translation]


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member when he claims that he is introducing his motion in a positive way so that it has the effect of bringing about a change in the Standing Orders of the house.
However, the Chair has not made a decision with respect to the point of order. In my opinion, it is still consistent with the Standing Orders to talk about this point of order raised when the motion was introduced at the beginning of the private members' hour.
If the motion in its present form were to be passed, it would constitute a precedent, for it would have the effect of blocking the implementation of section 49 of the British North America Act. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has dealt with a point which reflects the weakness of his argument. Indeed, he maintains that the majority is not defined in the British North America Act, and that it may be a matter of a majority of 75, 80 or 90 per cent.
Now, I do not find that argument very serious, and the more so since, in the same section, it is pointed out that should the votes be equal, the Speaker shall decide. It is clear- and such has always been the practice in the House-that the majority, that is half the votes plus one, decides when a question is put to the House.
However, Mr. Speaker, reverting to the motion before us, the proposed amendment would mean that in order to amend the Standing Orders-and they no doubt have to be improved-198 yeas out of 264 votes would be necessary.
I heard some hon. members mention that we still have to modernize our Standing Orders. Now, to require a majority vote from three quarters of the members of the House would by no means be a proper way to improve or modernize them.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that, generally speaking, amendments to the Standing Orders require unanimous consent from the hon. members. In most cases, we have proceeded accordingly, and the government never imposed its own views, because some committees sat for months and for many years in order to study the Standing Orders and suggest changes. All parties were represented on such committees. They could make then-views known, and several recommendations made unanimously by the committees were adopted by-

April 13, 1970
Hate Propaganda


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock. At 6 o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m. [English]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the third reading of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment on third reading of this bill. As one member who moved an amendment to this bill which was defeated in the committee and in the House, I am anxious to go on record in this debate as saying that despite the defeat of my amendment which dealt solely with one aspect of the bill, in my opinion on balance the bill will be for the benefit of the Canadian people.
When I spoke earlier I did not deal with other than the provisions in respect of genocide. To my mind the further provisions are the most important aspect of this legislation. The Cohen committee found there is need for the legislation proposed in this bill. I refer, without reading it, to page 59 of their report. The Senate was concerned, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of this House was concerned, and with the qualifications and reservations expressed by many of us this bill has now reached third reading stage.
I was finally persuaded by the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) of Tuesday, April 7, as recorded at page 5609 of Hansard. Accordingly, bearing in mind the conscientious, honest and learned opinions of the right hon. gentleman and other members of this House who have contrary views, I shall vote for the bill in the hope that it will show that in this country we give more than lip service to racial and religious equality and that, in addition, we will
[Mr. Forest.)
not tolerate statements made in public which incite hatred when such statements are likely to lead to a breach of the public peace nor will we tolerate persons wilfully promoting hatred other than in private conversations without any justification or excuse. No such conduct, to my mind, should ever come under the guise of freedom of speech or communication in a modern state such as Canada is today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I respect his legal opinion. Does he think the bill, taken in its entirety, is constitutional?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, although I have not participated previously in this debate I have listened to many of the speeches and have been quite impressed with the sincerity of those who have participated. This debate has produced a great deal of smoke and some heat with very little fire. My ancestors were very outspoken people. They came from northern Ireland. I say "came" because they were driven out of that part of Ireland because they protested and became known as Protestants. They went to Scotland, and even the Scottish could not stand them. Then they went to Canada and settled and helped establish the community of Orangeville. Over the years in northern Ontario, where many of them subsequently went, they were able to mix with other people and thus moderated their views. Now they express moderate protests against various things and even against various people.
Legislation of this type has been passed in other countries. If one were to examine the legislation passed in Germany one would find that that country had similar legislation. Charges were laid under it. We are all aware of the final result in that country.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Bill of Rights, which was to establish for people rights in respect of other pieces of legislation, has not accomplished all the good which it was anticipated would result from it. I am of the opinion that this legislation also will accomplish nothing unless the people of Canada wish it to do so. Personally, I am not interested in cluttering up the statute books of our nation with legislation that will exist only because the people themselves accept it. In Canada we have not needed this type of legislation for 100 years, and I can see no justification today for the passage of this bill.
April 13. 1970


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Call in the members.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-196, respecting grain, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a very significant piece of legislation providing for an updating and revision of the longstanding Canada Grain Act. This act is a key instrument in achieving an orderly and effective grain marketing and handling system in Canada, providing as it does for quality standards and quality control and for standards and procedures for the handling, transportation and storage of Canada's grain crops.

April 13, 1970
Canada Grain Act
In the average year Canada produces approximately 1.5 billion bushels of grain, and in terms of dollar value this represents in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. To cope with an industry of this magnitude we must have an effective grain handling system and storage facilities. To market grain efficiently we must also have a rational and efficient grading system which effectively serves the available market.
Canada's trade in grain is a very large and very basic component of the total economy and contributes very substantially to the wellbeing of Canada. The ability of Canada to achieve and maintain her share of the world market will depend in very large measure on the quality of Canadian grains and on effective segregation of the grain into grades reflecting quality differences and the needs of the market. Here I might mention in particular the quality specifications and requirements of our customers.
Advancing technology, Mr. Speaker, is having a major impact on the grain industry of the world. Important developments have taken place in almost all the advanced nations in new and advanced processes relating to milling, baking, malting, macaroni making and other forms of the utilization of grains. For example, bread may now be produced by newer methods based on physical dough development and continuous baking systems instead of on the traditional methods through yeast fermentation.
There has also been considerable progress in methods of scientific evaluation and in control techniques and procedures. These developments have resulted in correspondingly more sophisticated requirements and specifications for grains in world markets. These specifications must be met, especially in view of the fact that alternative sources of supply from other countries have become more and more competitive.
Taking into account these quality requirements of our customers, the legislation that is before the House tonight has been designed to place Canada's industry in a position to meet these new challenges in export and domestic markets. It provides the flexibility to make changes and will enable us to change our standards and our grading from time to time in view of further developments.
The present Canada Grain Act, Mr. Speaker, sets out the grade standards for the various grains in the act itself and therefore can be changed only by an amendment brought before this House. This new bill sets out the

grade standards as a schedule to the act. Therefore, the Governor in Council will have authority to change present grade standards, to establish new grades and generally to change the schedule of grades set out for any of the grains included in this act.
In urgent situations, for example, changes in the schedule of grades set out for any of the grains included in this act can be brought about quickly. I suggest that this is essential because opportunities sometimes come quickly and we must be in a position to respond to those changes. As a general rule, however, and in the interests of continuity we think it will probably take at least eight months to change any of these grades. I say that because there is, of course, a very important financial involvement so far as the inventory on hand that has been purchased from the producers is concerned, because that has not yet found its way through the gathering and transporting system to be loaded as export cargo.
The bill also provides for the inclusion of other quality factors such as protein content of wheat in establishing grain standards. This bill places the government in a position to implement, just as soon as is practicable, new grain standards for wheat which include protein as one of the quality factors. It, similarly, places the government in a position to deal with changes in other grade standards which may arise from time to time.
The authority of the Board of Grain Commissioners, named the Canadian Grain Commission under the new act, is also broadened to give the commission the ability to exercise authority, as the situation warrants, over the entire grain elevator system, including facilities such as feed mills and elevators associated with the processing industry. In the past their authority has been restricted to country, terminal, transfer, eastern and mill elevators. The elevators will be classified according to their principal use and will be licensed in a corresponding fashion.
The bill provides for a more complete control of railway cars and of grain movement. Authority, for example, to allocate available railway cars among shipping points will be continued. The Governor in Council will have authority to require elevator or railway companies to place at any particular point railway cars for the carriage of grain. In addition, the Governor in Council will have the authority to decide which minister or agency of the government shall exercise the powers of allocation of railway cars among the points and, indeed, among elevators at a particular
April 13, 1970

shipping point. The bill provides the legislative base tor the block system of grain transportation that was recently introduced into western Canada.
What has been done in the past few months really has been within the ambit of an agreement among interested parties to conduct their part of the block system in such a way as to achieve its objective, that objective being that the Canadian Wheat Board can be reasonably if not absolutely sure that precisely the kind of grain they have called for to be brought forward will be in fact the kind of grain that is in the railway cars and being delivered to the terminal elevators during a period when those kinds are needed. The reason behind this is that we do not wish to block, plug or congest the terminal system or railway system with the kind of grain that is not saleable at that particular point in time, to the detriment of our sales commitments with respect to that grain that is saleable.
In summary, Bill C-196 represents a complete revision of the Canada Grain Act. It is based on a study in depth covering an extended period of time and extensive consultations with industry representatives, ranging all the way from the producer to the ultimate terminal operator who loads the grain into our customers' ships. Furthermore, it will place the government and the Canadian Grain Commission in a position to serve the interest of the Canadian grain producers and the total grain industry. It is my firm belief that this act provides for the co-ordinated and efficient grain grading and handling system which we now require in the 1970s. It also equips us to make changes that may be needed to meet new developments and to meet new challenges in our domestic market and, more particularly, in world markets.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The general objective of this act is to protect the interests of the producers, to safeguard the quality of Canadian grains, to provide for an effective handling system and to achieve maximum acceptability of Canadian grains in domestic and export markets. A more specific object is to update the act so as to conform with present-day practices in the grain industry and provide greater flexibility in meeting requirements of export and domestic markets.
The act is divided into eight parts; I shall not refer to specific clauses, but just to the eight sections. The first deals with the constitution of the Canada Grain Commission; the 22218-22
Canada Grain Act
second deals with grain grades, grading and inspection; the third part deals with licences and licensees; part four, with elevators and grain dealers; part five, with the carriage of grain, and part six, with enforcement and enforcement procedures. The seventh part is general in nature, and part eight has to do with transitional measures and consequential matters such as the repeal of the present act and the commencement of the new one when the regulations supporting the various statutory provisions are in force.
The last major revision of the Canada Grain Act took place in 1930, since which time many changes have occurred in the grain industry at home and abroad. We are all aware of this. The grain market, which was then mainly Europe-oriented, is now worldwide. A far greater percentage of our grain is used in Canada, particularly for livestock feeding. This is taken into account in the amendments.
The Canada Grain Act was designed to provide legislative authority for the control of the grading and movement of grain in both the private and the publicly-owned elevator system. This control is established in two ways; first, by setting up grade standards for the quality of all Canadian grain and imposing the requirement that grain movement through commercial channels should meet these standards; second, by establishing a licensing procedure which enables the board to control licensed elevators and ensure that the objectives of the act are attained.
In administering these provisions the board is required by the act to establish grades for new grains when required, maintain quality of standards for grades already 'established and provide for the proper segregation, storage, and treatment where necessary of all the grain moving through licensed facilities. All licensees are required to provide adequate insurance and bonding for the protection of grain while in storage. Tariffs for handling and storing grain are approved by the board. The board is also required to investigate all complaints made against licensees and to settle disputes arising within its jurisdiction. Broad powers are provided to arbitrate claims and disputes in the grain industry between parties other than licensees if there is agreement between the parties involved that the board should act as an arbitrator. The board also ensures the ordinary movement of grain by public carrier; it is empowered to exercise limited control in this area. The act also provides for a more extensive control over grain

April 13, 1970
Canada Grain Act
transportation by authority of the Governor in Council. Finally, as I said, the act provides the legislative basis for the block system.
In drawing this statement to a conclusion I should say that requests have been received from farm organizations and spokesmen for the grain trade in the last few years for a revision of the act. Over a two-year period the board has met with various segments of the industry and with departments and agencies of the government to discuss in general terms the changes which it is felt should be incorporated in the next act. I think it is fair to say there is general agreement that changes are required and that the changes proposed here reflect, in general, a consensus of the views expressed to us.
The proposed bill is a complete package. No further amendments are contemplated except perhaps one, and this has to do with whether or not there ought to be a levy or a check-off of some kind against producers to be used to support such agencies as the Canadian Grain Council and for other research, whether market research and development or in other fields. We should like this bill to be referred to the standing committee, at which time representatives of the producers could appear before the committee and indicate how they would expect a fund of this kind to be administered.
It would be fairly simple if the total amount were to be handed over or transferred to the Canada Grain Council which, of course, has a large producer-organization representation on it. But if other purposes were to be supported by this fund, it seems to me it would be advisable to hear from producer organizations how they feel the fund ought to be administered for these and other purposes. We would then be prepared to entertain an amendment which would reflect those views. It should also be noted that hon. members of this House, many of whom are in close touch with grain growers, are in a position to give us an indication of the manner in which a research check-off ought to be administered. No doubt hon. members will give us the benefit of their views in committee.
We have no particular resistance to making provision for this in the Canada Grain Act, but it seems to me that if we were to include a clause dealing with the matter before hearing from hon. members and from representatives of producer organizations we would be obliged to go fairly comprehensively into the manner in which such a fund would be
IMr. Olson.l
administered. I think it should be done the other way around; that we should first hear what they have to say and then bring in an amendment in such a way as to ensure its acceptability not only to hon. members but to the representatives of the organizations concerned.
The bill is a revision of the present Canada Grain Act. It does not enter into any new areas of authority, with one exception. It covers essentially the area covered by the present act. The exception is that it changes some of the provisions respecting grades and these, of course, will be studied at length when we get into the committee.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In summary, the bill provides for an essentially greater degree of flexibility and for a better integration of authority in this field. The bill represents a complete revision of the act. It was based on an in-depth study that covered an extended period of time, made by a committee that I am happy to say was thoroughly familiar with the Canadian grain industry. It is also significant that the act will provide for a greater degree of flexibility with respect to dealing with the changes made in grade specifications. When discussions in this regard are undertaken there is little doubt that the subject of protein as a grading factor in segretating Red spring wheat will be raised.
It must be emphasized that the bill provides only the mechanics for dealing with this new grading criterion. As far as the inclusion of protein in our grading system is concerned, the board has made a number of proposals the details of which are under consideration. The details of a workable procedure will not be completed perhaps to the point where they can be reflected all the way back to the producer before the bill becomes law. It could take as long as two years fully to implement a segregation system for wheat which would include protein as a factor. One of the main problems in this respect, of course, is in dealing with the very large inventory of wheat we already have in commercial channels.
I also want to advise hon. members that we do not intend to wait until we have a completely integrated system that reflects these changes in grade standards all the way back to the producer before we take some action to respond to our customers' requirements so far as minimum guarantees of protein are concerned. I believe there are some things we can do now, even with the inventory that we
April 13. 1970

have in place, to segregate grain according to minimum protein content. To the extent that we are capable of doing that, I think we should begin very soon. Indeed, some experimentation has been done along this line already. What is more, the millers of Canada who are aware of where the various levels of protein grade grain are to be found-this is done by shipping points-in fact place orders at particular shipping points depending on the protein tests made on wheat grown in the area in any given year, though this changes from time to time.
Another factor is that some of the grain coming out of that shipping point may be current year grain or grain stored from last year, or indeed the year before. This makes for more imperfection, of course, but the fact is that the mills which have been calling grain forward on this basis for their own purpose have been able to get grain with about 1 per cent higher protein than the average level for the whole crop.
I commend this bill to the members of the House of Commons for their consideration and trust that hon. members will very shortly see fit to send it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture which will call experts and go into the detail of the various clauses. In conclusion, I suggest the bill does meet the modern requirements of our grain handling system, and I hope hon. members see fit to pass it in time for the government to put many of the provisions into effect with the beginning of the new crop year.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to reply to the statement of the minister that he believed that some action should be taken in regard to giving an assurance to our customers that we can supply a certain level of protein wheat, even at this stage. I do not think there would be too much reaction, particularly at this time of glut, if the government were to decide to take immediate action in this regard. In fact, I am rather surprised that there has not been any effort made in the last little while to accomplish this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, there has.


Stanley James Korchinski: I realize that the block system is part of the over-all plan. However, I think we should proceed one step further and actually tell our customers that it is quite a simple matter to draw wheat from a given area. However, I will not go into the detail of that.
Canada Grain Act
With regard to another suggestion that the minister made concerning making a check-off, I have an entirely different reaction. I believe there will be a certain amount of opposition to this suggestion, and for this reason perhaps the minister has hesitated in introducing it. He nods his head to indicate that is not the case, but whatever the reasons may be, in view of the fact that the government went to the Canada Grain Council for advice on the LIFT program, all the producers in the west, and in the east too for that matter, will be very reluctant to accept a check-off system.
Although this bill is long overdue and it has many aspects of which I approve, nevertheless I am surprised that the LIFT program should have been introduced at this stage. I suggest we should have examined the merits of other courses of action. The task force on agriculture made the suggestion that we wait ten years before cutting down on total acreage. Yet the government thinks this can be done overnight and makes no provision for a period of adjustment.
The introduction of a measure to bring the Canada Grain Act up to date will probably be better received by the western farmers than was operation LIFT, and there are several reasons for this. First of all, the farmers are conditioned for the measure. They know the merits of it, they have discussed it and, as the minister indicated, they have asked him for it. Secondly, and perhaps a more valid reason, more farmers feel they will gain advantage from the changes in the Canada Grain Act. The LIFT program was a sort of negative program, whereas this is a positive piece of legislation. However, even though it is positive its passage will create many difficulties. The people who feel they will benefit from it most are the farmers within what is called the Palliser triangle. That, of course, does not include all grain farmers. The Palliser triangle includes only two-thirds of the western farmers. This will exclude one-third of the people from what they consider to be the benefits of the provisions under which protein grading will become a more important factor. Let us not look for miracles because of protein grading.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We are trying to regain ground we have lost-and the loss has been tremendous. During the last war we held about 40 per cent of world wheat markets. We have dropped to holding about 18 per cent of those markets,

April 13, 1970
Canada Grain Act
and that is a tremendous loss. So we really are trying to regain this lost ground. The U.S.S.R., Australia and the United States have been guaranteeing their cargoes for many years, and the United States has had protein grading since 1958. That is not to say that we should have adopted protein grading in 1958. From 1958 to the present we have enjoyed large sales. Back in 1962 we sold no wheat to Russia, and the next year we sold them 234 million bushels. Two years later the sale was repeated to the extent of 202 million bushels. These sales were effected at a time when we did not have protein grading.
The point I want to make is that great emphasis has been placed on the protein factor and a lot of people have tended to use the lack of this system as an excuse for our loss of sales. Let me immediately bring the House back to reality by pointing out to the minister and anyone else who cares to listen that we will not immediately find ourselves flooded with requests for our wheat: world wheat markets will not suddenly beat a path to our door to buy our wheat.
We must remember that other factors are involved and play a part in world markets. Having once lost a market, it is very difficult to regain it. There is in Regina a group which has just been organized. This group is a lobby of southern growers which calls itself the Pal-liser Triangle Wheat Growers' Association. The article to which I refer indicates that about 65,000 farmers will stand to benefit. That is only about one-third of the farmers, because there are approximately 190,000 altogether. These figures may not be completely accurate, but if you relate the percentage to the higher protein level they may be close to being accurate. These people feel they have a tremendous amount to gain by this switch in grading, perhaps to the extent of 30 cents or 40 cents a bushel. That seems to be the impression.
There is no mention of the protein factor in most of the quotations I have seen. There is mention of price. But I understand that only during final negotiations does the protein factor enter into it. While it is important to some customers, it is determined only after there has been negotiated what is considered to be a reasonable price. I point out that we will not immediately be flooded with requests for our wheat and that this change will not perform the miracles we so badly need.
Some of the other figures I have been able to obtain would indicate that two-thirds of the farmers are located in what is considered
[Mr. Korchinski.l
to be the Palliser triangle and that this excludes the northern and outer perimeters of that area. All our research up to the present has been directed toward this high protein grain area. This may have been desirable when we were selling under the old system, but the government must have been aware of this intended legislation. The government was aware of this grading several years ago, because it was mentioned then.
The government should have made a great research effort several years ago in respect of what is considered to be feed wheat. Research in this respect has been sadly lacking. This one piece of legislation has come forward and there has been a total absence of research in respect of other factors which may make this system work. The federal task force on agriculture had this to say:
The highest protein-content wheat is produced in the Palliser triangle... thus, if land is to be withdrawn from high quality wheat and used for feed grains, oil seed, and high yielding grains, it may be desirable that this occur in areas other than the Palliser triangle.
This brings us back to the fact that there will be an area wherein this legislation will not have a direct effect. We are told the world wants high protein wheat, yet the LIFT program indicates that we should not grow that kind of wheat. Rather than pouring $100 million into that, area we should allow the farmers there to con'inue growing high protein wheat, because of the government's opinion that this is the kind we can sell. We should use the $100 million for a crash program to work out solutions to problems facing the other one-third of the people affected. We have had little research in this field.
The Economic Council of Canada has pointed out that in terms of yield technology Canada has most substantially lagged behind the United States. Canada has achieved a rate of growth of labour productivity and agriculture well above that recorded in other sectors of the economy, and I will roughly compare comparable dimensions to the rate of growth of agricultural labour productivity in the United States. In contrast, Canada has advanced in the area of mechanization but not kept pace in yield technology. This is part of our problem. I am concerned about the other one-third of the farmers. Part of the study conducted by the council suggests for emphasis:
In 1965, for example, the yield of corn in the United States was 68 bushels per acre; this compares to a yield of 22 bushels per acre of wheat in Canada. On the basis of post-war trends, per com
April 13, 1970

yields in the United States have been increasing at an annual rate of about 2.0 bushels per acre, whereas wheat yields in Canada have been increasing at a rate of only 0.2 bushels per acre.
This represents exactly the type of competition we will be facing in those areas which will not immediately receive the benefits of this program. At the present time the Agricultural Committee is studying the very serious problem which exists in respect of depressed prices of feed grains. We find that barley prices are depressed. I have a quotation from the Regina Leader Post of April 11 in respect of a James Richardson and Sons newsletter. It reads:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Commodity Credit Corporation in the U.S., as expected, accepted bids from exporters of around 57 cents a bushel f.o.b. Duluth-Superior for a little better than 5 million bushels of barley.
With a price of 50 cents a bushel it will be very difficult for these people to realize the effect of these changes. To some extent there is a glut in respect of barley and oats. Something like 3 per cent of our export trade is in feed grains. I have a clipping here from the Edmonton Journal of February 3 under the heading "Barley future 'uncertain' ". In other words, in addition to the uncertainties and the problem we are studying before the Agricultural Committee today, we are also involved in the problem of feed wheat or any other grain that it may be necessary to grow in this particular area. I believe this situation will be very difficult for many farmers to understand until a government program is devised to provide for their needs.
It will surely appear to these farmers that the reduction the government desires will affect them mainly. There can be some manipulation as a result of bookwork. For example, if we take out the area known as the Palliser triangle, it is interesting to note that if the 13.5 per cent protein rule were applied, Canada's wheat acreage would have been cut from 25 million acres to 18 million acres in 1968. This 73 per cent of the 1968 acreage would have produced 373 million bushels of wheat or 70 per cent of the 1968 total of 533 million bushels.
So with this type of arrangement the government could conceivably some day make the statement that it had solved the bread-wheat problem. But what really is the situation? Another problem has been created in the process because until now not enough attention has been focussed on this situation. Special consideration, once this legislation has
Canada Grain Act
been implemented, must be given to the people who will be excluded. It will be difficult for some people to understand how anyone in that area can compete with people in tropical areas where there is plenty of rain and sunshine, and be expected to produce yields when there is no research in respect of our weather conditions. In some tropical areas several crops can be grown in one year, while we are limited to a season.
For the benefit of those who may be interested in what is known as the Pallister triangle, I should like to explain the situation. It is bounded by a line running almost straight north from the U.S. border to just north of Edmonton, and then roughly it follows the main line of Canadian National Railways through Saskatchewan and into western Manitoba. From there it drops sharply to the U.S. border again. All areas outside the line- the Alberta foothills, the Peace River Valley, the Saskatchewan parklands and most of Manitoba-averaged less than 13.5 per cent during the 40 years in the period in which the study was conducted. Manitoba will be particularly hit; only about 30 per cent of its wheat will be particularly hit; only about 30 per cent of its wheat will be in the protein area.
One can see the effect this legislation will have on Manitoba. The bill contains no provisions for adjustment. There is no provision in respect of the types of feed grain, and so on. There is no provision for a storage payment to farmers to provide some income during the period in which the grain is held until called forward by the board. Naturally, there will be a holdback by the board; the grain will have to be held for a certain time for blending purposes.
There is no provision in the bill in respect of the complex storage facilities which will be necessary for the blending of protein grades, and so on. I can visualize a situation at the terminals where 14 per cent protein grain can be obtained by combining 1,000 bushels of 15 per cent protein grain and 1,000 bushels of 13 per cent protein grain. In fact, I suppose, this is one way of doing it. I can imagine the amount of bin space that will be required. There is no provision in this regard. It will be necessary to reconstruct the whole elevator system if we are to provide storage at elevators. The government will have to come up with a system to haul grain to the inland terminals or provide terminals somewhere else. I suggest the adjustment should be made wherever it will be most helpful. Research

April 13. 1970
Canada Grain Act
might be considered to be a large factor. We are away behind in this regard. There should be some sort of crash program.
This bill will provide the government with extreme powers. There may be a necessity to provide criteria in respect of the changes to be made. The bill will give absolute power to the minister rather than to the grain commissioners. Perhaps this situation should be considered. I think somewhere along the line, if it is found that changes in respect of the Canada Grain Act would be mutually beneficial we should trust each other in this regard and not place absolute control in the minister. If the advice given was rejected by the minister, the onus would be on him to give an explanation. In addition to the men just running around checking on the elevators, and so on, I think on the basis of their experience they could furnish valuable information to the minister.
I know there are other points which could be raised at this time. I certainly wish to see the bill reach the committee as quickly as possible. If the Agricultural Committee should decide that certain areas should be visited, I believe either the committee or a subcommittee should look into the question in order to see what adjustments can be made as quickly as possible and bring this matter to a head immediately.
On the basis of the evidence that can be obtained, I hope this bill will receive as speedy a passage as possible. But I also hope the government and the minister will heed the advice I have tried to give at this time, especially in respect of the thousands of farmers who will find themselves in an even more difficult position than the one they are in now.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, we have waited some time for the announcement which the minister has made to the House tonight, and some of the things which he said, such as that this bill is a key instrument in the marketing of our grains, are, of course, quite true. The efficiency of our marketing system depends to a very considerable extent on how well we grade our grain and how well it is prepared for market.
One is somewhat shocked when one sits in committee and asks one of the experts what is the difficulty in getting barley to a particular market and the expert replies it has too much wild oats in it. Of course, any really adept farmer will get the wild oats out of the

barley, so this is not a problem. In an instance like this the problem is to make sure that the regulations are such that a second-rate type of product is not offered on the market.
The minister said we should be able to change quickly and that we have to meet the needs of advancing technology. One cannot substantially quarrel with this point of view regarding flexibility, and so on. But what we really need to consider is what are the priorities which we are seeking to establish in this act, and what are the aims? The following is stated in the act at page 12:
Subject to this act and any directions to the commission issued from time to time under this act by the Governor in Council or the minister, the commission shall establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate and supervise grain handling in Canada, to ensure an efficient grain handling system and maximum acceptance of Canadian grain as a commodity of dependable quality in domestic and export markets.
This sets the case for the need for this act as succinctly and as carefully as it could be said. The part about the act about which I would be concerned is its reliance on Order in Council to change the grades, to establish procedures, to control whole mechanisms of the act. Repeatedly in this act reference is made to Order in Council. The minister spoke of protein grading, quite properly so; but this act as drafted does not provide for protein grading. It is left open.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It provides the authority.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is true. If you go back in the act to where the specifications of the grades are set up, you will see that certainly we have done away with one of the top grades. I would judge by this that the milling grades will be the top three grades. This is some change from what we had before, but essentially as the grades are specified within this act and as they are set out it is the sight and weight grading procedure which we use now. By Order in Council this year, next year or the succeeding year these grades can be changed to include any factor that the minister or the cabinet may decide it is advisable to include under the act. This is a pretty substantial change.
The Canada Grain Act has a long and honourable history. At times in the past it has been described as the Magna Carta of the western farmer because it enshrined certain procedures on the basis of which the farmer could claim his rights. Those procedures were established by Parliament and they could
April 13, 1970

only be taken away by Parliament. We recognize the minister's plea for flexibility, but I think he has carried it too far in this act.
It is said in the act that we shall have certain commissioners, who may appoint certain assistant commissioners. Do we need them, or do we not? If they are essential, the bill should read that certain assistant commissioners shall be appointed. If we do not need them, why should this be mentioned in the act? Was it not possible for those who drafted the act to make up their minds whether or not they needed assistant commissioners?
The act does not cover new ground. We are not dealing with a subject which is unknown. This act, or rather its predecessor which this bill replaces, has been in effect for a long time. We know how many elevators have to be supervised. Therefore, we should know how many people it takes to supervise them. We should know whether it is advisable to supervise them with the aid of assistant commissioners or with other staff. As I read the act, it will change the character of our method of handling grain so that we may mix grades under the supervision of the commissioner. This was not permitted under the old act. I suggest that considerable pressure will be put on the commissioners once this act comes into effect to permit mixing within the terms of the act.
All those who are experienced in grain handling know that under these circumstances the tendency is to mix down to the minimum of the grade, which does not always work in the interests of what is desirable for the quality of Canadian wheat. I question whether this power needs to be in the hands of the commissioner. Again, if I read the act correctly, it is proposed that wherever excessive overages occur, they can come back to the Canadian Wheat Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners. This, of course, is a protection, and as far as that goes it is overdue. In the country elevator system we permit the elevator companies to keep whatever they might make. Under these changes it is proposed that if the terminal elevators make something in excess, we will take it away from them. That may be some protection, but I am still somewhat leary of the proposal that permits mixing in terminal elevators.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The bill also makes substantial changes in regard to the right of the individual to order cars. It does away with the car order book because it has been said that this will no longer work with the block system. But
Canada Grain Act
where does it leave the ordinary farmer with regard to getting cars? Again, as I read the bill, in the final analysis he must go to the Board of Grain Commissioners if he wants a car.
The minister should concern himself with this factor. I had a carload of flax that sat in the elevator for over a month while I ordered a car to ship it, and if I had not let it sit I would have lost the value of the screenings that were in the flax. So I held it until eventually I could get a car. In the meantime, the price was going up and down and I was paying storage on the flax. When I said to the elevator agent, "Look, I want a car to haul my flax," he replied, "All I can do is phone Edmonton. They tell me what I am going to get as far as cars are concerned and I cannot argue back. It is a one-way line, and until they decide to send me down a car, your flax will have to sit in the elevator." I must say that I did not attempt to make any extra effort to do something about it, but the farmer's right to get a car and to move his product to the market when and as he wants should be protected in this bill. I doubt that his right is protected in it at present.
Under the old Canada Grains Act we had that right with the car order book. It may not have been protected under present conditions with the block system, and so on, and it may be that the car order book could not effectively protect the farmer's right, but I do not think his right is protected in the short references that are made to it in this bill. This is important because he is the lone individual in a very highly organized grain handling system, and if Parliament does not protect his rights you may be very sure he will sing a long time to the Board of Grain Commissioners or to the elevator companies to get his rights protected. This is one matter to which very careful consideration should be given, and I hope the government will look at it. The new provisions appear to provide for adequate inspection. Of course, we will have a chance to go into this in some depth when the bill is examined by the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say there is an excess of Order in Council in this bill, and we are not writing enough provisions for the protection of the farmer. We are not writing enough provisions so that the rights of the farmer will stand clear and without question and so that it will be stipulated which grades will remain and which will be standard under the legislation.

April 13, 1970
Canada Grain Act
I imagine that if I were responsible for operating a grain company I would probably be rather uneasy if I felt that the government, by Order in Council, could change the requirements of grades for the grain that was sitting in the elevator system. That is a pretty heavy stick to hold, covering flax, rapeseed and barley. I think that those regulations and standards should be known.
I do not understand why the Board of Grain Commissioners and the government, with the experience and the knowledge they have, cannot at this time make definite recommendations to the House as to the protein standards that should be used, and why such recommendations cannot be put before the House rather than the suggestion by the minister that in due course, if advisable, when it is thought right, when the time has come, we may use protein grading. It should be ensconced in this bill if it is going to be a part of the grading system, and it should be part of the grading system. Everybody agrees with this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It will be.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If you were in England, as I was last week, and talked to people on both the purchasing side and the selling side, you could come to only one conclusion, that we should not be thinking just of protein grading today but we should have been thinking of it yesterday, or a year or two ago. It is difficult for me to understand why it is not in the bill and why this Parliament cannot consider it, pass on it and judge the effect it will have on the ordinary farmer.
I have not got too much confidence in Orders in Council over this whole scope of activity. The minister may smile, but when I see a government go out, as this one has, and propose the things it has proposed to the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba within the last month, I think it would have been a lot better if it had been obliged to come to Parliament and put an act through this House. If so, it would not be making the blunders that it will have to live with in the very near future and with which unfortunately the farmers will also have to live. By bringing these matters before the House for full discussion, protection could be provided for the farmers. That, to a large extent, takes care of the points which I wanted to make in regard to this bill.
There is too much Order in Council and not enough real protection for the producer, and the two are not mutually exclusive. We had

both under the old act. For example, as this bill now reads, if a farmer has grain of a certain grade and quality, is the elevator company at the point at which he has his quota obliged to take that grain, or not? The act is not clear in this regard. It says that the commissioners may decide whether that elevator has to take his grain. But the commissioners are in Winnipeg, and he is on an elevator ramp somewhere out in the country.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
These were the rights under the old act, and I think they are not now stated clearly enough so that the farmer's rights are protected. If this is so, of course it will also affect the elevator companies. While they would like to take as much leeway as they can, I still think they would prefer to operate under an act wherein the rules of the game are clearly set down, rather than under an act where they know the rules can be changed.
In regard to a check-off on grain, I am prepared to discuss such a matter when the government chooses to bring it in and when they put concrete proposals before this House or the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The same would apply to protein grading. I do not know how we can discuss this matter when there is no provision in the act for any such thing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You could make a concrete proposal.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I could, but I do not know why I should, Mr. Speaker. In the offices of the Board of Grain Commissioners are charts which have been prepared for a good many years showing the protein pattern all across that Prairie region-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I mean with a check-off.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -so why should I batter my brains out to try and put it before this House when the minister has all that high-priced help and could have had it here this evening? I am ready to discuss protein grading when the minister brings it in to this House. I hope when that occurs that the minister or some of his aides will have something concrete to offer on the subject. I hope they will be prepared to say that this or that proposal could go into the act, and not leave us to do it all on our own.
There is one other matter which might be worth mentioning in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and this concerns the new
April 13, 1970
varieties. I wonder if this act gives enough leeway for the handling of new varieties. I notice it follows the same pattern as the old act, that any new proposed variety will be dealt with by the Western Grain Standards Committee and the Board of Grain Commissioners. This was a very good system, but I wonder if we would not have been well advised to provide further assistance for testing and working on new varieties in terms of money, personnel, and so on. Other than grading, this is one more area which I think could come under the responsibility of the act. We should consider providing assistance for the development of new varieties, getting them tested and into the hands of farmers a little faster.
The record of the Board of Grain Commissioners in regard to protecting the quality of Canadian grains, not only wheat but others as well, has been very good and I would hope that the body which emerges under this act will be as responsible and efficient. This has always been regarded as of prime importance
Canada Grain Act in our grain business and merits a little more attention in terms of money, time and personnel.
Aside from the points I have raised, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the minister has brought an act before us that we can consider and work with. I hope that when we get it into the committee the minister will see fit to make changes along some of the lines suggested.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


William Arnold Peters: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair now call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 9.57 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Tuesday, April 14, 1970