1972-03-16

PRIVILEGE


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


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the question of privilege, notice of which I sent to Your Honour yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to cause any difficulty, but I was not aware that the Chair had received notice of a question of privilege. I believe I received notice of a motion yesterday but not notice of a question of privilege. Perhaps it might be difficult to determine whether the notice was notice of a motion or notice of a question of privilege. I suppose it is a question of interpretation, whether the words used by the hon. member can be interpreted as notice of a question of privilege rather than notice of a motion. In the circumstances, I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. He may indicate what the privilege is that he proposes the Chair should consider.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises as a result of the petition of the Old Crow Indian people which was tabled in the House of Commons a short time ago and is based upon Standing Order 67(8) which reads as follows:
No debate shall be permitted on the report-
The report of the Clerk of Petitions.
-but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required;-
Your Honour will recall that instead of being read the petition was printed in Hansard as though it had been read. After the semicolon in paragraph 8 of Standing Order 67-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with hon. members in welcoming back to the House the Minister of Manpower and Immigration after his illness. After the semicolon there follows an alternative procedure that is available if certain conditions are met:
-or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is now a requirement for an immediate remedy since the minister has invited applications for the construction of a pipeline or pipelines which inevitably must cross the land forming the subject matter of the claim of the Old Crow Indian people as 25020-56!
contained in their petition. I do not suggest, nor do they, that they be heard in this House immediately, but they seek the same accommodation that was given to a member a short while ago when a petition he presented was referred to a standing committee for consideration, the same accommodation that was given by unanimous consent yesterday when the complaints of Miss Booth were referred to a standing committee of the House for consideration. They seek only to have the petition referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The fact that the Barber commission has been set up does not offer an acceptable nor an effective alternative to the petitioners. Because of the immediate requirements which I have outlined to Your Honour and because the rules do contain an alternative procedure whereby the petition can be referred, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk):
That the petition of Chief Charlie Abel and Councillors of the Old Crow Indians in the Yukon Territory, presented to this House on February 29, 1972, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report with the committee's recommendations, if any, thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Yukon will appreciate, there are procedural difficulties with which the Chair is faced. The Standing Order to which he referred does provide a procedure which in some instances can be followed, but I respectfully suggest to him that that procedure was not available for consideration of the House when the petition to which the hon. member referred was presented to the House.
The hon. member now seeks to raise the matter by way of a question of privilege. I have serious doubts whether a matter of this kind can be brought before the House by way of a breach of parliamentary privilege. This is really what the hon. member must allege at the present time, that there has been in some way a breach of parliamentary privilege. If anyone's privileges are affected, it would be the signatories of the petition. It would be the Old Crow Indians referred to in the petition submitted by the hon. member for Yukon. I doubt very much that it can be argued successfully, at least so far as I can judge, that the parliamentary privileges of the hon. member for Yukon have been affected to such an extent that I should rule there is a prima facie case of privilege.
As the hon. member knows, when in the opinion of the Chair there is a prima facie case of privilege there can be a debate. What is referred to a committee is the breach of privilege, not the substantive matter. What the hon. member now proposes is that the petition of Chief Charlie Abel and other members of the Old Crow Indians be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. That is really a

March 16, 1972
Constitution of Canada
substantive motion. In my view, the hon. member will have to find another way to submit the substantive motion for consideration by the House.
The hon. member quite rightly referred to the fact there was accommodation in another instance when the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond presented a motion which in a way was similar to this one. It was also based on a petition. It was agreed between the representatives of the parties that the matter would be considered by a standing committee of the House. There is that possibility yet, I suppose. I would urge the hon. member to take this up with the representatives of the other parties. I would certainly supply my good offices to the extent they could be helpful in trying to achieve compromise or accommodation as was done when we were met with a similar difficulty some months ago.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in both official languages-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle)

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.

Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the final report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


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


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before this report is tabled, I should like to bring up a point of order.
The document being tabled is extremely important; it deals with the constitutional future and the fundamental laws of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this report did not get the unanimous support of the committee. Diverging opinions were voiced about the philosophy of the report and certain chapters.

The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and myself have prepared a minority report and I understand that other members of the committee did so too.
The possibility of members filing minority reports was discussed in committee. That right was refused by the committee.
Mr. Speaker, we claim that this fact contributes to denying the minority the right to express itself. Should permission be denied to table minority reports at the same time as the main report of the committee, I feel that this would constitute a very serious reflection on democracy.
Mr. Speaker, the committee in question is not like other committees; it is a special committee and, on referring back to Votes and Proceedings, one finds that this committee is called the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. And I emphasize this point: it is not an ordinary but a special committee.
I would now like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following fact: it is obvious that, according to some practices of the House, minority reports on standing committees of the House-and I say "standing"-cannot be tabled at the same time as the main report. And in my view, this is wise. Here is why: it is obvious that when standing committees are called upon to study a public bill or a government measure, it is not possible to accept minority reports from such standing committees.
It would not seem to me that the Chair could have accepted, let us say on the proceedings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, minority reports regarding legislation introduced by the government.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether there could be a little more order in the House so that I can make myself heard. It is of course not pleasing to hear French spoken in this House, but nevertheless I should like my hon. friends to hear my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a regular but a special committee in which no government policy is involved and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member, but I agree with him.

These private conversations which are going on in the House are very embarrassing to the hon. member who has the floor and certainly make it difficult for the Chair to understand what is being said by the hon. member.

I suggest that hon. members having conversations or discussions to carry on do so as much as possible behind the curtains, in the lobbies.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, that joint special committee was in no way involved in government policy. That is why I say that because of that we should depart from the general rule adopted in the House to the effect that no minority reports can be submitted following proceedings of a permanent committee of the House. As this is a special committee, I feel that it should be allowed,
March 16, 1972

in order that the voice of the minority may be heard, to submit minority reports concurrently with the main report.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been desirable after the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution to be able while reading the report of those proceedings to notice the dissent that was expressed from time to time either on questions of principle or opinions concerning some of the subjects that were dealt with. But such is not the case. If you peruse the report of the proceedings of this committee, whose report is being tabled in the House, nowhere can you see the names of one or more members who had taken objection. All that was done was to put the question, count the votes and say, for instance, ten members are in favour of the motion and 11 are opposed; therefore, the motion is negatived.
This is all that can be read in the reports of the proceedings. Perhaps if the heading "dissenting" had been put into those reports, I should not be making this request of the Chair today.
Besides, I would also refer the Chair to the mandate conferred to the committee by the government. The latter did not say: The committee shall consider such and such viewpoint or government policy but it merely advised: We appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the constitution of Canada in order to study the Canadian constitution.
The government did not lay any policy on the line when it asked the committee to study the constitution of Canada and, in my opinion, the mandate did not commit the government at all. This is why the report does not bind the government. In fact, it can reject or accept it in whole or in part. I feel that this is an important point in the matter I am raising.
I should also like to recall a precedent dating from June 23, 1971, when the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was submitted. I refer to paragraph 26 on page 3114 of the proceedings of the committee. This committee has submitted to this House a main report where dissidences were recorded. I refer this House more particularly to paragraphs 26 and 27 which read:
26. Some members of the Committee feel they are not able to concur with the Committee's findings, even though they approve a number of specific conclusions. In their view, the evidence and the facts which emerged from the Committee's examination justify a much more critical assessment of the first policy paper.
And the matter of minority opinions continues to be raised.
I therefore uphold that my request is well founded and that the precedent which I just quoted must bind the Chair to consider favourably the point of order which I raised.
Mr. Speaker, I say again that I have here copies of the minority report of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and of myself, in the two official languages, and that I am prepared to table them if the Chair so decides. But before I close, I would like to say that, subject to the decision given by Your Honour, I reserve the right to move in the House a motion asking leave to produce the documents to which I have alluded.
Constitution of Canada


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asse-lin) in the point of order he has raised. It seems to me it is one of very great importance. Whatever may be the technical and legal position taken in the past, I believe the time has now come when official recognition should be given to dissenting or minority reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: March 16, 1972
Constitution of Canada
were it truly unanimous and not just made to appear unanimous, may have very great value.
In this particular committee I was impressed with the degree of unanimity on many fundamental issues of the members on that committee representing the Senate and the House of Commons from every corner of Canada. Yet at this moment under the present rule we do not know which of these 100 recommendations have the unanimous support of the whole committee.
I have not tried to argue this matter on a technical basis, but I say that a modern, intelligent, commonsense rule would permit minority voices to be heard in these reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support firmly the point of order raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and supported by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). As a member of this committee who has a minority report that is not the same as that of the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), I think we are perpetrating a complete fiction by continuing the present system. Here we have a committee of 30 members representing four political parties from all the regions of Canada, composed of not only members of parliament but also ten senators.


An hon. Member:: Wow!


Mr. Nowlan:: Live ones?


Mr. Hees:: It is hard to tell.


William Warren Allmand: Like other hon. members who have spoken, I feel that if we are truly going to contribute to the debate on the constitution, or on any other subject which is dealt with by a report, the serious minority views that some members of the committee may have after studying the situation should be attached to the report, published with the report and distributed with the report so that all persons who read that report will also be made aware of the principal minority positions that are being put forward by those members. Let me point out that in most deliberative bodies such as royal commissions and task forces there is a place for minority reports. Our Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal publish minority decisions.
I urge the House to accept the minority reports for tabling today. As I said, I have one as well. We should allow these reports to be part of the great debate on the constitution.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I must speak to this point of order, since we are obviously much concerned with it.
Generally speaking, it is not usual-and I agree with you on this-to allow the submission of a minority report together with the formal report of a committee. We know this rule applies to both standing and joint committees, as well as to special committees of this House. This is the case, for instance, of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada.
Furthermore, according to the practice, dissident members may express their views in at least one way, that is- still according to the practice-in the report of the committee.
In this regard, I refer the Chair to paragraphs 26 and 27 of Issue No. 31 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, one reads, and I quote:
Some members of the Committee feel that they are not able to concur with the Committee's findings, even though they approve a number of specific conclusions.
Such is the situation of the dissident members of that committee.
In paragraph 27, one reads, and I quote:
These members are also unable to agree with the underlying tone of the policy paper in its repudiation of the earlier idealistic internationalism in foreign affairs.
Mr. Speaker, within the standing committees of the House, the members were able to express their views, without being named for that reason, and, in the official report, account was taken of their disagreement. Their views were even printed, something which this committee has not done.
Mr. Speaker, in Citation 318 of the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, on page 642 of the Eighteenth Edition of May's Parliamentary Practice and on page 471 of the Fourth Edition of Bouri-not's Parliamentary Procedure, it is provided that members may not present minority reports.
That is one thing. Another was accepted on June 26, 1971, when the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was submitted: in the majority report, a dissident opinion could be expressed without naming the hon. members, this having been requested by the hon. members for Matane, (Mr. De Bane), for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and others, but it was not taken into consideration by most of the committee members. Mr. Speaker, the former made their views known within the committee and asked for the inclusion in the report of the constitutional principle of self-determination. I quote an extract of the said report:
This matter gives rise to strong exchanges of views, but the inclusion of this right in the Constitution has always been refused as principle.
And this principle was not included in the report even though the request was made several times.
Mr. Speaker, here is another inportant argument. As was the case with the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the members of the committee on the constitution, if I am not mistaken, asked several times that their differences of opinion be put on the record in the report, without mentioning the names of the members concerned; as usual, this was rejected. Thus, we ought to say a word about the rights of the minority.
Issue No. 31 of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence does mention a fact that we should explain. That report indeed recognizes the right of hon. members to express different views and sometimes even views that are opposed to those of the majority, and the right to put these views on record in the majority report,

March 16, 1972

which has been refused by the majority of the special joint committee on the constitution. That is the question of privilege we are raising today.
It therefore follows that when discussing a revision of the constitution we are dealing with a substantial question. It is clear that such discussions involve, not only for Quebec but for all other Canadian provinces, the right of self-determination. However, hon. members have no other channels for stating their views than the normal legislative institution, which they control. They are therefore muzzled and unable to express their opinions, even diverging, otherwise than by their remarks or their vote within the committee-neither in the report nor in the House.
According to the normal regulations to which I referred previously, the Standing Orders obviously do not as yet authorize minority reports, a fact to be deplored in 1972, an era of such critically serious problem. And, what is worse, in this case the majority report deliberately ignores dissidence.
The procedure established for the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence represents an eminently noteworthy precedent and in my opinion dissident members have been denied their fundamental rights.
In fact, it might happen that a group of members of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee, engaged in a study of the Canadian banking system, would want its opinions on monetary reform to be taken into account. If a similar right is denied today to members of the Committee on the Constitution, it will mean, to all intents of purposes, that members of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee would likewise be unable to bring forward the concept of a monetary reform through the channels of the parliamentary institutions they control. Thus, their only means of having their views considered would be through action outside the House and the committees, which is quite incompatible with the definition of Parliament, a democratic institution in the highest sense of the word, where the minority is and should continue to be respected. Under that system, the Canadian people can express their views through their spokesmen, the members of Parliament.
This shows how important this question is. We are now dealing with a basic issue which the Chair must take into consideration when it renders its ruling.
We could also mention the reports of standing and special committees with which the government disagrees. What becomes of those reports? They remain on the shelves. And then the majority of the committee is muffled and stifled in favour of the silent majority in the House.
This is why members of our party wish to support dissenting members and to insist strongly that the rights of the minority be respected in the report without the names of the members involved being disclosed.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the basic principle expressed by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). I should also like to empha-
Constitution of Canada
size that it should be made clear that this principle extends not only to special committees but also to the standing committees of this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Grant Wahn: -such as the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to which reference has been made. We faced this problem in that committee on a number of occasions. We could find no specific precedent which would prevent the expression in our report of minority points of view, although there seemed to be a general feeling that the House did not recognize minority reports from committees. On investigation we could find no specific precedent that would prevent minority views being expressed in our reports. Therefore we made provision in several of them for minority points of view to be recorded in the main body of the reports.
We did see that some confusion might result and that the system might be open to abuse if the principle were adopted that minorities could publish separate reports on their points of view at public expense, but we did not feel that this same objection could apply where the views of the minority were recorded within the main body of the report. This was the procedure we adopted. It was based on our experience that, if we refused to permit a minority to express its point of view in the main report, that minority simply prepared a report in any event and then gave it to the press. It seemed to us much better that the minority point of view should be summarized and discussed within the committee and form part of the main report rather than have this informal procedure followed.
We think that the procedure we have adopted works well and we hope that Your Honour's ruling will recognize it as a proper procedure and that it will be extended to all the standing committees of the House.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Your Honour is receiving a great deal of useful advice and I am not going to prolong this matter unduly. One of the points raised earlier was the question of whether there was sufficient precedent within our parliamentary tradition or whether it was possible within the foundation of our parliamentary system for there to be such minority reports. Without repeating the excellent arguments put forth for the acceptance of such minority reports, I think it might be useful to consult not the Mother of Parliaments in this case but one of our sister parliaments, that of Australia. In the Senate there, which is an elected body, minority reports are permitted. In Australian Senate Practice, third edition, 1967, the following is recorded at the conclusion of Standing Order 311 relative to the preparation of a draft report:
A protest or dissent may be added to the report.
It goes on to say that the Senate considered there was considerable value in minority reports.
I think it is right and proper, as the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has stated, that such minority reports should be included from time to time where it seems appropriate. I shall not repeat the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and others with respect to the

March 16, 1972
Constitution of Canada
importance of this question in relation to a matter that is so fundamental to the country.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in rising this afternoon to support unreservedly this submission and the request of the hon. members for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and Matane (Mr. De Bane) so that this report can be tabled before the House.
Reference was made to the importance of our constitutional future in relation to the report produced by the committee and it is clear also in my mind that we have recognized that there could be no unanimity on this committee. A minority report is not normally acceptable to the House. I think however that one must consider the implications of the particular report that is being presented to us. I know that traditionally minority reports have not often been tabled, although it is recognized that precedents have existed.
Mr. Speaker, to justify the tabling of such a report, I should like to lay strong emphasis on the importance of the submission that is being made to the House by the hon. members for Charlevoix and Matane.
Members from Quebec and all others obviously need the information contained in the report which could be titled: Everything that a Member of Parliament Should Know. It faithfully reflects the situation in a province unsure of a country's future. I therefore believe that the clear and distinct conditions and explanations it contains would enable our English-speaking friends and colleagues to understand that the report is invaluable as far as the constitutional future of our country is concerned.
I am convinced that I had to make those few comments in order to justify the presentation of the report and that the federal government and Parliament today had the opportunity of proving themselves. Rejection of the report could be interpreted by citizens of one province as the refusal to acknowledge and listen to the truth which should have been exposed in the House a long time ago.
For all those various reasons, I dare hope that all members of the House will co-operate for unanimous concurrence in the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not intend to limit in any way the discussion of this very interesting and important point of order but as the afternoon wears on I would hope that all hon. members would want to attempt to limit their contributions to the procedural aspect of the discussion. I am sure this is what has been done pretty well until now. Hon. members may agree that to this point we have considered most of the procedural arguments which might be advanced in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix. Having said that, it is certainly not my intention to limit the discussion and I shall listen to further argument on the procedural aspect of the matter.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, you are perfectly right when you say that the comments which have been presented may have exhausted the matter, but on the other hand, I would like to draw your
IMr. MacDonald (Egmont).]
attention to the fact that there is another precedent, in 1964, and I think that it is worth mentioning.
When the Special Committee on the Flag included in its report the votes taken during its proceedings, it was then extremely important that hon. members knew that votes had taken place, and I even think that the names of hon. members who had voted on those occasions were listed in the report. I am not absolutely sure of that, but the result of the votes was in that report.
I was sitting on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution, and I have personal remarks to make in that connection. These comments should be added as an appendix to the report or be included in it.
I read the report prepared by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). I fully agree with their remarks, and I would also like my report to be tabled with the majority report.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, there were, I believe two aspects to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). If I may deal with the first aspect at the beginning, it was to the effect that dissenting opinions expressed in the committee have not been recorded in the report which has already been tabled. It has been stated that that was the practice followed by the committee on external affairs, as verified now by the chairman of that committee. It seems to me that was the line of argument taken by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) also. On that particular aspect of the problem I am not proposing to argue, because it is a matter that ultimately must be resolved in committee and it does not arise in this case because the report now before the House does not contain any dissenting opinion. It may be that in future, through examination in the committee on procedure, we ought to devise a method or recognize a procedure by which dissenting opinion can be set out in the main report of a committee.
I believe we ought to reflect for a moment on the nature of the parliamentary process and on the nature of the reference that has been given to this committee and which was discharged today. The House of Commons asked the committee to study and bring forward recommendations on the constitution of Canada for consideration by the House. In the normal course the decision, either in this chamber or in a committee of the House, is rendered through the decision of the majority. The decision of that majority, whether in a committee of the House or in the House itself, becomes the decision of the House itself. It is recognized in the constitution of Canada that the majority decision becomes the decision of the House. The committee, having received a reference from the House of Commons, has deliberated. The majority has reached conclusions that have become the report of the committee itself as presented to the House. That is the traditional approach that has been followed pretty regularly, with the exception that has already been noted, and it may be an exception that we ought to continue in the future.
March 16, 1972

It is urged today that, in addition to receiving the report of the committee itself, the House ought to receive not only one minority report which is proposed to be laid on the table by the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) but a further minority report from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and, finally, a further report from the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance). In other words, the House, having asked the committee to simplify its task by studying the problem and bringing forward conclusions that would aid the House, instead of receiving that assistance is to be confronted not with one main report of the committee but with four reports. That is really what is proposed.


An hon. Member:: Five reports.


Mr. MacEachen:: Five reports.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Are you people opposed to ideas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me, if that proposition is admitted, that it will lead inevitably to the conclusion that every member of a committee is entitled to have his report tabled in the House. If that logic is admitted it means that, if one member can move concurrence in his report, every other member can also move concurrence in his report and there will be 10 or 15 contradictory propositions before the House at the same time. I believe that is not what is contemplated either in the minds of hon. members or by the rules. What is contemplated is that when the House receives a report from a committee it will receive the majority conclusions and that will be dealt with by the House. That does not preclude the right of the minority to make heard its dissenting voice, as undoubtedly was done in the committee and as can be done in the committee and as can be done in the House if and when a motion to concur is moved in the House. It is not a formula to eliminate dissent or the right of minorities to express their opinions. It is a practice that allows the House, with the greatest possible simplification of procedures, to deal with one report and still preserve the right of others to make their views known.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that our present practice is certainly more valuable and more useful to the House than any practice would be that contemplated any member of a committee having the right to table a report, have that report considered and a motion of concurrence moved with respect to it. I realize that there may be strong views as to the future course the committee system ought to take. I believe that the consequences of this matter are so important that it ought to be considered further. For the moment, however, I think we ought to maintain what has been the tried and tested practice followed by the House for a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that there are still as many as six hon. members who want to take part in this interesting debate. As I said, I do not intend to limit the debate because this is such an interesting and important point, but I hope that hon. members will make their contributions as brief as possible.
Constitution of Canada


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I agree to some extent with what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has said but I would differ in this respect. One of the problems encountered today arises from the fact that too often when committees consider their reports they consider them in camera. The motions that are made are usually made in camera. Opportunities for visible expression of dissent are not available to the extent that they would be in other circumstances, particularly in the House. In addition, Mr. Speaker, another problem we are confronted with is that too often committee reports are not discussed or debated in the House. There is a certain opportunity, of course, to discuss them but it is a limited one. An opportunity for hon. members who dissent from a report to move motions expressing their dissent might be one way of overcoming the problem to which my hon. friend from Charlevoix has referred. I think the right of dissent must be preserved. I know it is not held in high esteem across the floor, at present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I feel, however, that we should try to preserve it as much as possible.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address a few words to you on this matter, before you render your decision. As much as I might be tempted to agree with the generally persuasive words of many hon. members on this subject, especially those of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), I submit that the question which is raised today is not precisely the question they have been discussing. If, as I believe that the practice of the house is fairly well established, this is not the time for us to debate whether or not that practice ought to be changed. May I draw to your attention a discussion that took place in the committee itself on this question. On May 5, 1971, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace moved a motion which was subsequently adopted:
Whereas this committee had discussion as to whether or not members should have the right to append personal minority reports to a committee report and whereas it was suggested that this was contrary to the rules of the House of Commons and the Senate,
Be it resolved that this committee request the House of Commons and Senate for a clarification on this point and if such a right is contrary to the rules of the House and the Senate, that the rules be changed to allow for such personal minority reports.
In pursuance of this matter I contacted the Table and received in reply a letter from the Clerk, which it might be proper for me to table this afternoon. The substantial point made in that letter was that no known precedent exists for a minority report either in our practice or in the practice at Westminster. Citations were given from both Beauchesne and May. I will not take the time this afternoon to read the letter or to indulge in a lengthy procedural argument because I believe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has already satisfactorily dealt with this part of the question.
I do not believe the members of the committee felt they were not at liberty, if they wished, to include in the report views which dissenting members had or to mention the

March 16, 1972
Constitution of Canada
names of those members. The fact is that the committee, in pursuance of the jurisdiction given it by the House, decided not to follow that course. The report I presented this afternoon is the report that was adopted by the majority of the members of the committee. The committee has, as it should, made the decision to print only the majority report. I should say, however, that in the text of the report the committee acknowledges there are dissenting opinions. In several places in the report there are references to positions taken as being the positions of the majority rather than of all members of the committee.
In conclusion, with regard to the matter of incorporating names and the particular feelings of individual members on questions, the committee has already made its decision and I submit that the House has no option but to accept the decision which has already been made by the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall heed your admonition that comments be brief. In response to part of what was said by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), I think there should be in our minds at any rate a distinction between legislation when it is referred to a committee and a subject.
When a bill is referred to a committee, that committee has to make its report in clear terms, yes or no. However, when a subject is referred to a committee, surely what this House wants is ideas. I do not see anything wrong with a report or reports coming back from a committee to the House which give to the House the benefit of not only the ideas of those who comprise the majority but the benefit of the ideas of the minority members of that committee.
I thought another point which the President of the Privy Council made or sought to make was a bit of a red herring. He suggested that if there were four, five or six reports we could have a series of debates on motions to adopt those various reports and that would create a great deal of chaos and confusion.
If we are going to meet this problem effectively, it is obvious we are going to have to make some rule changes. Certainly we could provide in any rule that it is only the majority report that is debated on the floor of the House. At the present time the only provision for concurrence by motion is in a report, not in a minority report or a minority opinion which might be tabled at the same time.
I have no hesitation in saying that I realize Your Honour will have difficulty, particularly in view of the clear language of citations 318 and 319 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, in ruling that the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) or other members have the right today to lay on the table their minority opinions or minority reports. However, I want to underline two things that have been said during the course of the debate this afternoon.
The rules, including citations 318 and 319 to which I have just referred, do not deny to any committee the right, by a majority vote, to include in its report the opinion of the minority. The hon. member who spoke just before me, the chairman of the committee, said that his committee decided not to do that. However, the hon. member for St.
[Mr. MacGuigan.J
Paul's (Mr. Wahn) earlier reported that his committee had decided to take that course of action.
Perhaps I may be digressing for 30 seconds from the point of order, but I should like to say this. With all the talk we hear from the other side about participation in the process of government and all the talk we hear about the importance of the committee structure, is it not time that committee work was made something other than monolithic? Is it not time that committees had the decency, courtesy, foresight and intelligence to report back to the House not just the opinion that got the largest number of noses when the count was made, but the opinions and ideas that came out of the discussion in the deliberations of that committee?
I make a strong appeal to committees, to this one and to others, to update themselves and think of committees not just as instruments of the government there to endorse one opinion only but as instruments of parliament that have been given a job, to bring ideas back to the House of Commons.
As I said in my opening remarks, I see a difference between legislation and subjects which have been referred to a committee. In the case of subjects, surely we want all the ideas we can get that will be good for the discussion that goes on in parliament and in the country.
The last thing I should like to do is concur in the suggestion that others have made that surely the time has come to make any changes in the rules that are required in order to update ourselves in this regard. If this means that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should look into this matter, I hope it will be given the opportunity to do so right away.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on what was said by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He made several references to the proceedings of the committee. His argument serves the point raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). He said that when a member suggested that his opinion be included, the majority decided, that when a member suggested that votes be registered, the majority decided.
In the House of Commons, everyone at least has the right to have his opinion made public. It is recorded in Hansard. As hon. members know, when a committee report is drafted it is done in camera. The public do not know what has been said there. It is not recorded. When a member moves a motion or votes for or against something in the House, it is recorded and available to the public. The stand that each member takes is known.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the point raised by my hon. friend, the co-chairman of the committee seems to concern us.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all appreciate the same values- that states, countries, forms of government, political structures and especially the number of reports are sacred and history is there to prove it. And how! What is eternal, precious and must be saved at all costs is the primacy of man, the principle of freedom, equality and the right to defend our own opinions within legal structures.
March 16, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of pointing out to the hon. member that as much as possible he must restrict himself to the procedural aspect of the issue under consideration. He now seems to be expounding the philosophy of the parliamentary government and I do not think that is the point raised at the present time.


Pierre De Bané: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my second point is that committee reports are always prepared in camera so that members do not have the opportunity of expressing their points of views, as is done in any other debate of this House. Of course, one may reply that members who have minority reports to submit can always forward them to the media, but obviously this is not the point because members enjoy the privilege of having their reports recorded for all time in the proceedings of Parliament.
It can also be said, as the co-chairman of the committee suggested, that the report states a few times-especially in the communique-that the majority has decided a certain thing. They do not say "unanimously". But of course saying "by a majority" does not indicate who voted for and which motions have been rejected by a majority.
I would like to end by quoting to Your Honour, further to the quotation of my hon. colleague for Charlevoix regarding paragraphs 26 and 27 of the 1971 report by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the Report of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, Session 1970-71 of the House of Commons in London.
At page 67 of the 1971 report, the name of the sponsor of each motion is given in full and then it is stated. The amendment was made, the Committee divided-"Yeas", so many, "Nays", so many.
And when the vote is tied, the chairman has a casting vote.
So, when the joint chairman of the committee argues that there are no precedent here or elsewhere, the hon. member for Charlevoix mentions a precedent from this House, the hon. member for Egrnont (Mr. MacDonald) mentions one from Australia and I mention one from the Mother of Parliaments.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with which we are dealing now is of the utmost interest to me. I listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) and also to those of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
The issue is one of procedure and the function of committees, according to what the President of the Privy Council said, is to examine a particular question in order to further the work of the House. In a committee, the question is given closer scrutiny while often the House can proceed with other measures.
I always understood that committees had a responsibility but I never understood, Mr. Speaker, that some committee reports are discussed by Parliament and others are never discussed.
If committees have been established for studying specific problems, I think this was to throw more light on a
Constitution of Canada
subject after a special study. So, if this is the purpose, when a committee is tabling its report and dissenting members cannot have their viewpoints stated in this report, I think the House and the government are deprived of valuable information.
Since Parliament may accept or reject a committee report and in view of the serious nature of the problem . and of the Canadian political climate, Parliament should stand as an example to the whole country and respect any and all minorities.
Under the present circumstances, the tabling of a minority report is requested. We are not aware of its content. So if the government wishes to know the viewpoints of all the committee members we should logically accept both the majority and the minority reports. This would be a fine example to the whole country and government would be able to know the evidence given to each committee member everywhere in the country.
Finally, I must say that I have already been a member of a most important committee which spent tax money to travel throughout the country. I had no opportunity of having my views incorporated into the report. I was quite disappointed and this report which was tabled in the House has never been called by the President of the Privy Council to be debated.
That, in my opinion, is the procedure which should now be followed. I readily agree with the hon. member for Charlevoix and ask the Chair to accept the minority report.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members of every party who, for the guidance of the Chair, have stated some sound views, I am sure, which I will try to take into consideration when giving a ruling on the point of order of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin).
The hon. member has indicated that he was rising on a point of order before concurrence in the report.
I wish to point out immediately that the matter has nothing to do with the approval of the report. A motion for concurrence in the report will be put forward in due time, I suppose, either by the chairman of the committee or another member on his behalf or a member speaking on behalf of the committee members.
We are now discussing the tabling of the report and we must take for granted that it has already been tabled and that it is now before the House.
If I understand correctly, the hon. member for Charlevoix rose on a point of order because he would like to know whether minority reports can be tabled or should be concurred in at the same time as the majority report. No need to indicate to hon. members that this would be an entirely new practice.
Members who have participated in this debate on procedure have referred to parliamentary practice in Australia. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) has referred to the procedure in Great Britain, but no precedent has been quoted to me to the effect that I could allow the submission of one or more minority reports.
Members have largely quoted, I admit, sections and precedents which carry weight in such cases. Paragraph

March 16, 1972
Constitution of Canada
319 of the 4th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary-Rules and Forms has been quoted to this House:
The report of the committee must be signed by the Chairman. No other signature should be affixed to a report for the purpose of showing any division of opinion in the committee, nor can it be accompanied by any counter statement from the minority, as such is unknown in British parliamentary practice.
I would add, by the way, that it is also unknown in Canadian parliamentary practice.
I keep on quoting:
The Chairman only signs by way of authentication on behalf of the committee. He should sign even if he dissented with the majority of the committee. No minority report should be made to the House.
It should be noted that Bourinot refers to the fact that in certain circumstances, a minority report has been attached as an appendix to the majority report of the committee.
It must be indicated also that the precedent quoted to justify this practice dates back to 1874. It might perhaps be useful if I were to read this quotation from the 4th edition of Bourinot's. Here it is:
No signatures should be affixed to a report for the purpose of showing any division of opinion in the committee; nor can it be accompanied by any counter-statement or protest from the minority, as such a report is as unknown to Canadian as to English practice. When the chairman signs a report, it is only by way of authentication. In 1879, a report of a dissenting member was brought in and appeared in the votes, but attention having been called to the irregularity of the proceeding, this minority report was ordered not to be entered on the journals. The rule with respect to such matters, however, has been more than once practically evaded by permitting a minority report to appear in the appendix to the report of the committee;

This is where reference is made to a precedent dating back to 1874.
On the other hand, hon. members, especially the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) have stated that in recent years, especially in 1971, the report of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence included the dissident or minority opinions of some members.
I find nothing in the precedents established by the House to prevent such a procedure. What the Standing Orders and parliamentary practice forbid is the tabling of minority reports. It is somewhat in the nature of an obiter dictum to suggest that a report may include dissident or minority opinions.
But what reaches us eventually is a single report, the majority report, and the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which was presented last year contained dissenting opinions of course but only one report was presented and no suggestion was made that the House should receive at the same time a second, third, or fourth minority report.
In view of the circumstances, I really cannot see how I could ignore this long parliamentary tradition and allow the hon. member for Charlevoix, the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), the hon. member for Green-

wood (Mr. Brewin), in short all hon. members who said that they had minority reports to present, to table those minority reports.
In very eloquent terms, the hon. member for Greenwood suggested that time has come to change the Standing Orders. It is possible. Some members have said that time has come for Parliament to give members of a committee the opportunity of expressing their diverging points of view in a minority report. Perhaps, but unfortunately it is not up to the Chair to make such a decision.
The hon. member for Greenwood and, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested it. The proposal is valid, interesting and could easily be studied by the Procedure and Organization Committee. Many times, I took the liberty of recommending that this committee examine some parliamentary practices. Here is one which I think could be usefully studied by the committee.
Having said that, I do not think I can comply with the hon. member's request that the minority reports be now presented.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, when I raised on a point of order, I reserved the right to move the appropriate motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. Without contemplating an appeal from your decision, far from it, I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House.
May I move my motion immediately or should I do so on motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the hon. member should wait for motions, which will be called in a moment, I think.



PRESENTATION OF MINORITY COMMITTEE REPORTS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion providing for hon. members who so desire to present minority reports on the Canadian Constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Charlevoix. That motion requires the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Andre  Fortier@Lotbiniere: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It seems that we have reached a point where a minority of one single hon. member can defeat the majority.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 16, 1972

(English)



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning the dissemination of seriously misleading statements in a document published under the authority of one of the ministers of the Crown. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the publication Canada 1972 and particularly the statement on page 105, "Defeat of a major government bill will ordinarily be considered a vote of confidence . .. but the cabinet can choose to consider any such defeat not decisive," be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination as to any real or implied diminution of the rights and priveleges of this House or of its members.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be a lack of unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
ft
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) might have been making a statement on motions today, but in light of the fact that he is not I request unanimous consent of the House under standing Order 43 to move the following motion of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That in light of the breakdown in communication between the potato producers on Prince Edward Island and the Minister of Agriculture, resulting in widespread misunderstanding and anxiety-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member. It is obviously argumentative. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate quickly what the rest of the motion is so that it might be put.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the request received today by the minister for his attendance at a mass meeting of growers in Charlottetown tomorrow I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque:
That this House does request the Minister of Agriculture and his officials to attend this meeting so that there may be a resolution of the concern and anxiety about the diversion potato program in the shortest possible time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



RESEARCH ANIMALS PROTECTION BILL


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-171, to provide for the humane treatment of vertebrate animals used in scientific and industrial experiments, tests or training by recipients of grants from the government of Canada, by agencies of the government of Canada and by persons manufacturing or testing pharmaceutical or biochemical products for sale to the government of Canada or to any of its agencies.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, those who have looked at this bill know it has been introduced in the House previously. Its purpose is self-evident. I am hoping that this time the House in its wisdom will see to it that the bill is passed.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. On Tuesday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition regarding whether or not the government intended to introduce a budget this spring, the Minister of Finance used the following words:
I cannot tell the hon. member if or when there will be a budget.
Can the Prime Minister advise the House and the country whether or not the government intends to introduce a budget this spring, and also would the Prime Minister advise the House when the government intends to make known its policy on foreign investment in Canada so that the uncertainty surrounding both these matters may be removed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is asking a double-barrelled question, if not two questions. I think hon. members, when they have the floor, should make an effort to ask only one question at a

March 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
time. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the Prime Minister to reply to the first question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I cannot tell when, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is: Would the Prime Minister advise the House when the government intends to make known its policy on foreign investment in Canada, and when he is answering that would he give the House something more definite than the word "soon" with which we have had to content ourselves for the last eight months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer was in reply to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the people of Canada to come to any other conclusion than that the government intends to duck both these important issues until after the next election for obvious political reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister some questions arising out of a confidential report which is in my possession dated October 18, 1971 and presented to cabinet by the interdepartmental committee on participation which was established following a cabinet decision of December 23, 1970. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday to a group of Ottawa highschool students and his repeated assertion that citizen participation in government is a priority with him, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has taken any steps to implement the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the interdepartmental committee to which I have referred.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not have that particular interdepartmental committee in mind, but the House knows the government has taken a great many steps to implement its belief in participation. If you will allow me sufficient time, Mr. Speaker, I can answer this question. We have, for instance, increased the facilities of opposition members in participating in the parliamentary process by allowing, at public expense, the hiring of research people. We have increased participation in the country by increasing the number of white papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the position of the right hon. gentleman who is trying to reply to the question of the hon. member for York South. He might require more time than is usually required to make an answer during the question period. I would think this kind

of information normally ought to be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With respect may I say I did not ask the Prime Minister to indicate the steps. I asked him whether any steps have been taken to implement the recommendations. I think I should also point out that funds have not been provided only to opposition parties for research purposes, but also have been provided to the government party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this is debate. Perhaps the hon. member might now ask the supplementary.


David Lewis: -not to mention his own office. I want to ask as a supplementary whether the government has created participation groups to assist departments and agencies of government to develop citizen participation programs, and whether the Public Service Commission has been asked to implement a participation training program so as to give Public Servants a greater awareness of their duty at least to the citizens of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows there are a great many funds expended by the Secretary of State in the area of encouraging all kinds of groups across the country to participate. He knows, for instance in the case of Indians, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has supplied a great deal of funds to increase the participation of that group.


George Harris Hees: You are losing your place.


An hon. Member:: Is that Dr. Spock's book?


George Harris Hees: Old sulky. He is sulking. He is getting mad. Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to move a little more quickly. The hon. member for York South apparently has a further supplementary.


David Lewis: I am rising on a supplementary, but before I ask my question I want to rise on a point of order, Sir. I appreciate the great talents our Prime Minister has-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -talents for acting and dissembling. I appreciate those.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member has a point of order, but if he has he should indicate what it is. I suggest to hon. members, however, that we should make an effort, by cooperation with one another, to proceed with the question period.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me, but if you will wait a moment I will vary the point of order. I wish to say that one talent which ought to be shown by the Prime Minister is courtesy to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 16, 1972


David Lewis: This deliberate activity of reading a book while he is listening to and answering questions is a piece of disgraceful behaviour, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may wish now to ask the supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the courteous and thoughtful Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: There is no limit to that stupidity. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, as is recommended in the report, the government has taken steps to minimize the disadvantages faced by citizens' groups in trying to influence government affairs and government policy as compared with business and professional groups. Has the government taken any steps to minimize those disadvantages or is it contemplating such steps.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust the hon. member will agree with the Chair that this is a very large question. If the Prime Minister can reply briefly he will be allowed to do so, but I suggest respectfully and kindly to the hon. member for York South that such a question normally calls for a very general statement to be made on motions. Having said that, however, I will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. member's further supplementary question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is of course that the many, many grants given in all the fields enumerated earlier are a demonstration of this.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one short further supplementary. Would the Prime Minister undertake to make a statement to the House on motions with regard to the report to which I have referred signed by Bernard Ostry, Chairman of the interdepartmental committee and tell us what steps the government has taken if any to implement the conclusions and recommendations in this report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not my custom or the custom of the government to make statements on the basis of reports to the government which are confidential and which have been obtained by I do not know what means.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Inquiries of the Ministry
A few days ago, in the minister's absence, due to circumstances beyond his control I am sure, I pointed out to his parliamentary secretary that a very difficult situation had developed in the Unemployment Insurance regional office in Sherbrooke, namely that the number of employees had been increased by about 25 or 30 per cent on the same premises, and that service to the unemployed was thus greatly reduced, since many of them had been waiting eight or ten weeks now to get their unemployment insurance cheques. Is the inquiry over now and can the hon. minister tell us whether something is being done in order to improve that situation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the allegation regarding any slowness in the unemployment insurance office in Sherbrooke has not come to my attention, but I will look at it as soon as possible and report to the hon. gentleman.



INDUSTRY


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the government reject an application by Dominion Aviation, a western Canadian company involved in the Canadian development of STOL aircraft for grants and assistance under any government programs, and if so, in the light of the report of discussions between that company and American interests, including Howard Hughes Industries, for the possible sale of the corporation, will the government now review its decision?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Obviously, I cannot remember every request for research and development grants that comes to my department, and if I did, the hon. member would accuse me of having a hand in the selection.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the urgency of this issue and the importance of the work in which this company is involved, will the minister give immediate priority to examining this issue to find out whether such a request has been rejected and whether the government intends to review its rejection in order to save this company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do that with great pleasure.
While I am on my feet, may I kill a rumour which was alluded to two days ago by the members for Lachine and Sainte-Marie-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to make a statement, he will have to revert to motions. However, if he is replying to a question which was asked previously, he can do so at this time. I recognize him for that purpose.

March 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Are you resigning and crossing the floor?



ACTION TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF NORTHERN ELECTRIC FROM MONTREAL

Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish to answer a question which was raised having to do with the Northern Electric Company in Montreal. The rumour was that the company was about to leave Quebec to go elsewhere. That is not true. I telephoned the president of the company and he told me that even the thought never crossed his mind. As a matter of fact, the percentage of Quebeckers in the company's population is increasing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister a straightforward, legitimate question and I did not catch his reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said I would do so, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF IUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Has the guarantor of the passport of Geoffroy been charged with any offence?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no additional charge having been laid against another person other than those previously referred to in this House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that matter under investigation, and if so, will that person be charged?


Otto Emil Lang: It would obviously be very difficult for me to say very much about any part of that matter without touching on matters which are before the courts, and I think I should refrain from doing so.



POSSIBLE ROLE OF RAYMOND DENIS IN OBTAINING PASSPORT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What part did Raymond Denis play in reference to obtaining the passport or any other matter with reference to the case?


Otto Emil Lang: To my knowledge, no part at all.



ROLE OF PAROLE BOARD IN RELEASING MRS. GEOFFROY

['It is a disgrace to the House of Commons.']
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice whether the National Parole Board was consulted before Mrs. Geoffroy was released on parole?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not think that the question comes within my range of responsibilities.



Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disturb the Prime Minister in any way from his absorption in reading, but I would like to ask a question which I hope he will not regard as controversial or upsetting to his equanimity. Has the government extended an invitation to the President of the United States on the occasion of his prospective visit to Ottawa to speak to the House of Commons and the Senate, as was the case during my period as prime minister when we had visits from President Eisenhower and President Kennedy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The arrangements between the two countries are not final yet, and I think it would be improper for me to announce them in a unilateral fashion. However, as soon as possible, we will announce the program for the president's visit in Washington and in Ottawa at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of unilateral revelation at all. The Prime Minister does not trust this House because he reads.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He reads with prima donnal
arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a disgrace to the House of Commons.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has there been any federal participation in the Lake Louise project in the Banff National Park, and if so, what is the nature of that participation?
March 16, 1972


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the question. Lake Louise is located in a national park and the project the hon. member refers to is probably the one that is now under study; tenders have been called and a public hearing was held before we took a final decision.


Randolph Harding: Has any federal money been expended to date on this project, and if so, how much was allocated by the department, how much has been spent, and for what purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question, which is essentially statistical in nature, should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him whether he is prepared within 24 hours to approve the diversion of surplus potatoes held by the Agricultural Stabilization Board to animal feed, and if not, whether the minister is prepared to have his deputy or himself attend a mass meeting of potato growers in Prince Edward Island tomorrow as requested by the PEI Federation of Agriculture. I warn the minister that potato growers in Prince Edward Island have their Irish up and tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. The minister might be given the opportunity to answer.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I can advise the House that we have made the preparations that will be necessary for diversion of potatoes to livestock feed if and when that appears to be the most beneficial action to take.


An hon. Member:: When?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot give an undertaking that it will be done within 24 hours. When I arrived in the House today, I was unaware of this so-called mass meeting that is being called.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that there has been this request, which perhaps the minister has not yet seen, I wonder whether he can take steps to arrange that either he or his deputy minister meet with the potato growers in Prince Edward Island in order to alleviate much of the misunderstanding and concern that has arisen in the past few weeks over this matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are always anxious to alleviate any misunderstanding, but within the hours that have been set, whether all the arrangements can be made, is something I will have to investigate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the last supplementary on this subject. Afterwards, with the assistance of hon. members, I shall try to recognize those who were not recognized yesterday and, to the best of my recollection, I shall try to give them priority for a few minutes. The hon. member for Hillsborough on a supplementary.



POTATOES-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTER OR FARM ORGANIZATIONS IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of this very serious situation, has the minister communicated with the provincial minister of agriculture or with the federation of agriculture, to consult on a worsening situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken directly to the minister of agriculture, but I believe the federal deputy minister did yesterday. The other important factor is that potatoes are now selling at about 25 per cent over our purchase price in Prince Edward Island-


An hon. Member:: We were told all that yesterday. [Translation]



REQUEST BY QUEBEC MINISTER FOR ASSISTANCE TO GROWERS

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us whether or not he was recently asked by his opposite number in Quebec to participate in the financial aid program requested by Quebec potato growers who lost 50 per cent of their crop last fall because they had a bad year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the offer to purchase potatoes and to make a cash advance was made equally to Quebec and to the other provinces.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH-STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR STUDENTS EXPERIMENTAL TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the wholly unacceptable deterioration of rail service to Barrie, Orillia and points north, has the Secretary of State given his personal attention to the application under the Opportunities for Youth Program for $110,000 to finance a train
March 16, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry
service between Barrie and Toronto called the students' Experimental Transit System, and if so has the minister given his support to this application?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe this is a question which normally ought to be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment, but perhaps the minister might reply.


Philip Bernard Rynard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This question cannot be put on the order paper in view of the time taken to answer such questions in the past because this proposal has to take effect in the next few days.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member perhaps may not have heard my suggestion that the minister could reply to the question.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to answer the question because that project in probably one of the 20,000 or so we received within the last six days; if I tried to answer I would be afraid of getting off the track.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary-


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice that quite a few supplementaries are sought on this question. The hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AND METHOD OF PROCESSING

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would agree to make a statement on motions soon to indicate whether there might be some interim report on the number of applications received and, more important, the way in which applications will be processed, in view of the fact that the vast majority of them will not be accepted by the department?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH-REQUEST FOR THOROUGH REPORT ON PROGRAM

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: A supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In view of the firm undertaking made by the minister in this House on December 8 that a more thorough report on the Opportunities for Youth program than that tabled in the House on December 7 would be available before the end of the year, can the minister indicate whether he still intends to table that report and if not what his reasons are?


Gérard Pelletier: Very soon, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of printing.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of statements as far back as 1968 that the 1966 FRED agreement for north-eastern New Brunswick was to be revised, and in view of acknowledged problems with the original agreement, can the minister indicate if a revised agreement has been concluded for this multi-million dollar project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be able to sign this agreement soon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East would be patient for at least a moment. I would bow to the hon. member's supplementary, and then recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. The hon. member for Regina East on a supplementary.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF REGIONAL PROGRAMS

John Stratford Burton: In view of the millions of dollars being spent on this and other FRED projects, can the minister indicate if any evaluation has been made of the impact of these programs on increased employment and improved income and living standards and would he be prepared to make any such evaluation available to the House or to the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as we said it is an agreement between the provincial and the federal governments. We have considered the situation, assessed and corrected what appeared to us as defects in the agreement, and now I believe it will not be too long before we sign it.
I shall be ready to supply the committee with all relevant information.
March 16, 1972



POSTPONEMENT BY GULF AND CONTINENTAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK- EFFECT OF LEVY FOR POLLUTION FUND

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Luck is not with me this week. This is the third time I have risen to ask a question, and now the Prime Minister has left the House.


An hon. Member:: Thank God!


J. Michael Forrestall: I wanted to direct my question to him, but in his absence I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would take note of it and perhaps have the Prime Minister consult with his colleagues. The question concerns the indefinite postponement of the expansion by Conoco of its trans-shipment terminal in New Brunswick and the indication by Mr. McAfee, President of Gulf Oil, Canada, Ltd. that the levy for the creation of a maritimes oil pollution fund seriously jeopardizes any prospects for expansion of oil trans-shipment capabilities in the province of Nova Scotia. This comes immediately on top of the decision of Continental Oil Co. to indefinitely postpone a $60 million plant in New Brunswick.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the leaders of the other parties, the Prime Minister felt it was in order for him to leave but I shall bring this matter to his attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: When did he worry about that?


Mr. Bell:: He went to finish the book.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow another supplementary, but we will be running short of time and I am anxious to see those hon. members who were not recognized yesterday. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.



MARITIME POLLUTION FUND-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OUT OF GENERAL REVENUES RATHER THAN LEVY ON CARGOES

J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would as well take notice of a request that the government consider the establishment of a fund of approximately $25 million out of general revenues, which is the amount estimated to be required, thereby permitting a longer time for the development of this fund through a direct levy on a per ton or per barrel basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the subject of this levy has been very carefully studied. It is my understanding that no change will be made for the time being until some experience has been gained.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



REQUEST FOR REVISION OF APPLICATION FORMS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is just leaving. I wonder if he could return for a moment or two. We know the minister has been ill, and we are certainly glad to see him back in the House after his long absence. I should like to know if the minister has had an opportunity in the last few weeks to look at the incredibly complicated application form that people must fill out at the manpower centres. I think it is a form designed to fit in with the ACES system, but it is very complicated and it is giving headaches to the people who are applying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply. I suggest to hon. members that if questions are too long and contain too many explanations, we shall run short of time soon.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I agree with him. We had an analysis made which confirms that some of the forms are too complicated. We are in the process of preparing new forms. We are testing them in the field and discussing them with appropriate groups such as the advisory committee to the Unemployment Insurance Commission as well as the trade unions of the country, in order to come up with a much more simplified form.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby in a moment, but at the moment the hon. member for Mackenzie has been recognized.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask whether he has had meetings since the middle of February with any or all provincial ministers of agriculture pertaining to the small farm development program, and has he been led to believe that there is agreement between the federal and provincial ministers on this program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the last meeting I had with the provincial ministers of agriculture was, I believe, on February 14. There was, of course, no disagreement on the features involved in the program, although there was further work to be done and, I suppose, some disagreement on the division of administrative responsibility.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from a reply that the Prime Minister, prompted by the Minister of Agriculture, gave me on February 29. At that time I raised a question pertaining to this whole matter. I asked the Prime Minister:

March 16, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
-whether, in the interests of federal-provincial relations, it is still government policy to get approval from the provinces of policies in which they have a direct interest, prior to proceeding with them?
The Prime Minister replied in his usual way, "To get approval from the provinces when?" I said, "Prior to proceeding with these policies." The Prime Minister then said, "What policies is the hon. member talking about?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please indicate his point of order. Will he please resume his seat for a moment. I think hon. members have a responsibility to their colleagues and must be as brief as possible when raising points of order during the question period.


Stanley James Korchinski: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker. May I continue? May I point out that the Prime Minister's final answer on that occasion was:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture tells me that there is no opposition, that the provinces agree with the program.
I have looked at a Canada Department of Agriculture press release dated February 14, in which the minister is reported as saying:
We were hopeful that the provinces would see fit to join us in a federal-provincial program, but agreement has not been possible to attain despite a year of negotiations and meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He has had the floor for some moments and he still has not indicated what his point of order is. Up to this point it appears that there has been merely a disagreement on what might have been said in the House by way of an answer, and that cannot be considered a legitimate point of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House. It seems that a misleading answer was given, intentionally or otherwise, and I should like the matter to be corrected. I should like to know what the proper answer is with regard to this situation?


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to an earlier question regarding changes in UIC regulations. Is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in a position to announce to the House any changes in Unemployment Insurance regulations which would take into account complaints which have been registered concerning the connection between severance pay and holiday pay and the level of unemployment insurance benefits to which a man is entitled?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the regulations and I must state categorically that I have no intention of providing Unemployment Insurance to anybody who is on

vacation; nor do I have any intention of revising the regulations in such a fashion that the Unemployment Insurance Plan, which is an insurance plan, becomes nothing more than a welfare plan. On the other hand we are reviewing the regulations to see if some unintentional harm has been done to certain categories of workers. If and when I come to the conclusion that those regulations can be changed without weakening the insurance principle, then I will be prepared to bring forward those changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR REVISION OF TAXING POWERS TO ALLEVIATE BURDEN ON MUNICIPALITIES RESULTING FROM INCREASED PRICES

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance who was supposed to be here today. In his absence, since the Prime Minister is also absent now, may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Since prices rose in such cities as St. John's, Ottawa and Toronto by over 4 per cent in the past year, is the government now willing to open up the area of tax redistribution with the provinces and cities in order to alleviate partly the strain on municipal costs and services which are rising?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that the minister can reply to the question briefly, because it is of very wide import. I doubt whether it can be answered by way of a reply during the question period.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned about rising prices, of course. I do not think that there is a very relevant connection between the cost of government services in those cities and the rise in the local cost of living.



AGRICULTURE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question which is supplementary to the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).
Several breeders sometimes get together in order to buy at better price the feed for hogs. Could the minister tell us whether the regulations of the new plan providing a subsidy of $5 per head, index 100, and more at slaughter, up to $1,000 yearly by breeder, will also apply to each of the breeders grouped together that way?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, what we are asking from those people who make application where sales have been made in one name, whether by
March 16, 1972

a corporation or partnership, is information respecting the nature of the partnership or corporation so that we can examine this matter. We certainly want to make payments to each bona fide hog producer.



POLLUTION


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It arises from a number of telephone calls made from the west coast yesterday and today, all prompted by a major shipwreck yesterday, the third one this year incidentally, Mr. Speaker, off one of Canada's newest national parks, the Pacific Rim Park. There has been an oil pollution threat which today has become a fact. Will the minister act now and take steps to make this type of marine accident less likely by setting up a modern traffic control system in this area with all the necessary equipment and rules to make it effective?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly take that suggestion under consideration.


David Walter Groos: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary quickly. We are running short of time.



OIL SPILLAGE FROM SHIPWRECKS-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, my question to the government House leader is as follows: would he consult with his colleagues on the opposite side of the House with a view to reconstituting the special Committee on Environmental Pollution, which would study this specific problem and make recommendations to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have that question under consideration at present and have already had some communication with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the chairman of that committee, with a view to either reconstituting the committee or providing some other method by which this very useful work can be carried forward.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to our congenial Minister of Public Works. Will the minister ask his officials to look at the front steps leading to the Parliament Buildings which have been severely damaged by a backhoe used for removing snow. These hand hewn stone steps are severely chipped, and I
Inquiries of the Ministry
suggest that the minister should ask the contractor to make good the damage done.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, when I raised my question originally with the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture, I was told that I would obtain an answer on the minister's return. My question is related to the submission to the government of the Federation of Agriculture, on behalf of egg producers, for assistance in the fowl slaughtering program. What action is the government going to take on that request?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the representatives of the egg producing associations to work on an urgent basis to put together a marketing plan that is acceptable across the country, one that will bring supply and demand into balance. When that is done, we will be willing to give favourable consideration to some financial assistance that will help immediately.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Huron might be allowed to ask a supplementary question and then we will call Orders of the Day.


Robert Elgin McKinley: With regard to the fowl buying program announced by the government last year under which assistance was going to be given to producers, how much money was paid to producers under that program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: None, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question ought to be placed on the Order Paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for this week and next week. Also, if he is able, can he give any indication about the Easter recess? Finally, he might want to say how long we will be here when we return after Easter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the business of the House, we will continue today with the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements bill. This will be followed by the budget bill that is on the order paper. If that is concluded today, we will begin the explosives bill. Tomorrow is an allotted day.
With regard to the legislative outlook for next week, following the explosives bill, we will take the Criminal

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
Code amendments, keeping in mind that at any point I might call the amendment to the British North America Act which has been at the front of the program for several days. In referring to the Criminal Code amendments, I have in mind the hijacking bill and the bill on privacy. Next week, Mr. Speaker, the allotted days will be Tuesday and Thursday.
The proposed tentative date for the beginning of the Easter recess is the Wednesday prior to Easter Sunday, which I think is March 29. The date of our return is not yet clear, but it will certainly not be sooner than April 10 and possibly later. In exchange for all that information, Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend will tell me which day next week he intends to be the opposition voting day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter to which I will give serious thought and make my decision known in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-8, an act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, be amended by deleting from clause 32 paragraph (a), subparagraphs (iii), (iv), (v) and paragraph (g).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged to exchange with my colleague the order of speaking. Because of pressing arrangements he would like to speak now on the amendment I have moved.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House, and I shall not be very long. There are a couple of points we should keep in mind concerning Bill C-8. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had not only the benefit of hearing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) but the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada when the Committee was considering this bill.
There have been and continue to be national goals in post-secondary education. I suggest that we must be very

careful to nurture and foster this national emphasis. Your Honour will be glad to know that the length of my speech will have no bearing whatever on the earnestness and seriousness with which I view future federal involvement in this field. I am uneasy about the government of Canada turning away from its obligations to our universities and colleges. This will have very great implications on the future of post-secondary education in our country. The policy of assisting universities with capital and operating grants may not be the best method the government of Canada can adopt, but it is better than a mere transfer of income tax points which would have the effect of leaving each province on its own in the university sphere.
It would be pointless to reargue or rehash the point I tried to make the other day about section 93 of the British North America Act which in its proviso states very clearly, if I can put it that way, "in and for each province the legislature may". Then there follows a series of things it can do in the field of education. I do not for one minute want anyone to think I wish to interfere in any way, by argument, policy or philosophy, with the fundamental right of the provinces in the field of education, particularly at the level of the school curricula, and so on. However, I suggest that when the Fathers of Confederation framed the constitutional provisions that make up the British North America Act there were no such things, with two very noteworthy exceptions, as universities transcending provincial boundaries. I do not think universities have an international boundary, let alone a provincial one.
This whole question has been eloquently discussed time after time by Dr. J. A. Corry who was an adviser to the office of the Secretary of State on the matter of postsecondary education. Also, this policy was inherent in the adoption by the government of Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson of the formula of which this bill is really nothing more than an expansion. I feel that in this stage of our constitutional evaluation it would be a very good idea to have an educational council in this country, in no way diminishing the basic and fundamental constitutional rights of the provinces but, rather, acting as a clearing house for essential information, an exchange of views, and so on, in education.
I think it is seven years ago that the Bladen commission carried out a very worth-while study on the funding of higher education. Its studies have really been overcome by events. I respectfully suggest that during the next 24-month period, when we will have to develop a policy of federal aid to post-secondary education, would be an excellent time for the government of Canada, with the help and assistance of the provinces, to arrange for a new study on post-secondary education. This is really a plea for us not to get into a position of looking inward and looking provincially, if I can put it that way, in the field of post-secondary education.
Not all Canadians, despite the findings of the Wright commission, and perhaps this is a good thing for Canada, can be born, can be educated and can die in Ontario. This seems to be the philosophy of the Wright commission report. There are disquieting bits of evidence which lead one to the conclusion that despite the national goals so clearly enunciated and supported, I may say-and we
March 16, 1972

welcome this-by the government of Canada in its generous funding provisions under clause six of this bill, the federal government would like to be done with this and would rather transfer these funds under, really, a points system leaving the provinces free to develop in ten tidy, watertight compartments that which surely must not be compartmentalized these days, that is, the thrust and policy development of post-secondary education in our country. This is the plea: I hope that within the next 24 months serious attention will be paid to this problem.
I do not say this in any threatening way, but I suggest it will be a great disservice to this country, one which members on the government side, certainly many among the official opposition and, I am sure, members to my left, if the federal government feels it can in this way discharge its constitutional responsibility in funding and supporting national goals in respect of post-secondary education. This responsibility cannot be discharged by mere transfer of a few tax points. Obviously these are days when national goals must not only be developed but must be fostered.
I say that should the government think it can discharge its undoubted responsibilities by merely transferring income tax points, then, as distinguished Senator Eugene Forsey has said, many of us will want to tear the purple off the cloths.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Most of us share the concern he expressed about future government policy respecting the financing and funding of educational institutions.
Attention must, however, be paid to the terms of the motion which is before us. I am at a loss to understand what members of the official opposition wish to accomplish by the wording of the amendment. As I see it, they propose to weaken clause 32 which gives the governor in council power to make regulations. They intend to remove therefrom the power to make regulations which define the expressions "junior matriculation," "post-secondary level," "assisted, sponsored or contract research," and "operating expenditures." The amendment proposes to omit a general, catch-all provision at the end of clause 32 which would enable the governor in council to make regulations carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of the act.
There may be some logical explanation for this, but it seems to me that simply to remove the power to make regulations or to define these expressions and terms which are important in carrying out the provisions of the act would leave a gap in the legislation. It seems to me there ought to have been another amendment defining those expressions if in fact it was the intention of the official opposition to ensure that there would be no tampering with the definitions.
At the same time, I should like to make it clear that we share some of the concern he has expressed about the involvement of the federal government in the financing of post-secondary and other educational programs. The federal government has become involved in these programs over a number of years, during which it has contributed in a special way to the cost of education in Canada. An attempt has been made to do this in a way which does not
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
interfere with the constitutional prerogative of the provinces in the area of education.
Because of the federal structure of our country and because the federal government has the resources at its command with which to finance the cost of education in Canada in something approaching an equitable fashion, we must be concerned about the future of this program. The federal government entered these programs and its action in doing so was generally welcomed. This does not mean there was necessarily agreement as to the particulars of the proposals made by the federal government when it entered this field; nevertheless, there was a large measure of agreement with the decision made by the government some years ago to enter the field and contribute toward the cost of financing.
In the meantime there have not been any basic changes to the financial structure and revenue raising arrangements in Canada or the division of revenue raising power as between the federal government and the provinces. What lies ahead? There is every indication that the federal government is seeking ways and means of limiting its contribution to the financing of these shared programs. We should like the federal government to state clearly what its intentions are for the future.
Statements made before the committee indicated that some of the shared-cost programs are under negotiation and that various proposals are being discussed. This is fine; no one would object to this sort of discussion. At the same time, we would appreciate a clearer indication of what the federal government intends to do. Do some of the proposals it is making at the present time represent merely a negotiating stance, or do they really represent a studied policy for Canada? I hope we shall hear more from government spokesmen on these matters while the motion is under consideration.


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, as usual I find myself in a very agreeable frame of mind when dealing with propositions put forward by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Certainly, the desirability of federal participation in the financing of post-secondary education is not questioned.
I searched the hon. member's comments for some support of the amendment to which he was speaking, and I must say I searched in vain. I suppose I share the mystification which the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) expressed in that connection. The provisions which the amendment seeks to delete are essential to the operation of this program. They deal with the power to make regulations under the act.
The intent of the provision respecting post-secondary education transfer of funds is to provide financing to each of the provinces equivalent to 50 per cent of the eligible operating expenditures incurred by post-secondary institutions. The transfer is unconditional, which is to say that the provinces can use the money in any way they see fit. But the amount to be transferred, the quantum of the transfer, is based on the 50 per cent formula, or in the case of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland on a $15 per capita escalated amount.

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
To effect this transfer to the provinces it is essential that the Secretary of State know how much is in fact spent on eligible operating expenses of post-secondary education institutions. For this reason, clause 32 (a)(iii) is required so that the Secretary of State may ensure that the federal government is not sharing in expenditures incurred by institutions at the secondary school level. The program is for post-secondary education. For example, grade 13 in Ontario and grade 12 in the other provinces are considered post-secondary. Therefore, in order to administer the program you must be able to distinguish, in expenses incurred by a high school, between those at the postsecondary level-grade 13, or grade 12 in provinces other than Ontario-and those at lower grades that are secondary level. Accordingly, clause 32 (a)(iii) is necessary.
Paragraph (iv) of clause 32 permits the definition, by regulation, of the expression "assisted, sponsored or contract research". This, again, is to ensure that the federal government is not paying twice for research, once by way of contract, as is often done under other programs which would in many cases involve bearing the full cost of this type of research, and again by paying 50 per cent of its cost through the post-secondary education program.
Paragraph (v) permits the definition, by regulation, of the expression "operating expenditures incurred for postsecondary education" and again is needed so that the quantum of funds to be made available can in fact be determined. If there were no definition of "operating expenditures incurred for post-secondary education" there would be no way of determining whether the provinces were receiving more or less than they should. With great respect, I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that his amendment would, if adopted, be a real disservice to the provinces. It would simply make it impossible for the program to be properly administered.
With regard to the general authority to make regulations contained in subclause (g) of clause 32, I think I see in the amendment the well-known stamp of the hon. member for Edmonton West who fights a battle against the power to make regulations when any bill containing such provision comes along. I can only say that the necessity for making regulations here has been recognized. In discussions with the provinces they have never for a moment suggested that regulations should not be permitted to be made. As a matter of practice, the provinces are consulted to inform them of the government's intentions to make regulations and to obtain their views before any regulations are passed. As I say, no province has suggested that this power should not be in the bill, since it is most necessary and desirable to permit some flexibility in the operations of the programs as they evolve.
Accordingly, I ask the House to reject the amendment before us.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the House may be justified, especially in the light of the essential principles that should apply in all equalization matters and tax sharing arrangements between the central government and the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech of March 2 last my colleague the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) summarized the whole problem ably, sensibly and very accurately.
If the central government has so much money available, if it is in a position, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), to dictate to the provinces their policy in the economic and financial sector, it is by reason, at the very beginning, of poor coordination and of the conclusion of temporary agreements which are becoming more and more permanent. The takeover by the central government in some fields that were to be the sole responsibility of the provinces, according to the constitution, is becoming more and more abusive.
Today, many Quebecers are severely blaming the central government for its intrusion in some fields supposed to belong exclusively to the provinces. They are right in their reasoning.
By way of heavy expenditures, an effort is being made to coordinate taxation between the central power and the provinces, and once this has been achieved, it is doubly costly, whereas it would be so simple to allocate respon-sabilities first and then give each government the necessary resources to administer itself properly.
There is however a time when in spite of everything, we should say to ourselves: No matter where the money comes from, it is our money! And even if the results of expert calculations would seem to show that one province is paying more and another is paying less, that may not always be correct and most of all that may not be fair.
Of course the money allocated in all kinds of ways by the federal government always comes from the taxpayers' pockets. So why not then preserve certain prerogatives, certain special rights, I would even say certain privileges which certain areas of this country, including the province of Quebec, want to preserve above all? Why not? We know that Quebec prizes the education field like the apple of its eye.
As it was so well demonstrated by my colleague from Roberval, a simple way to solve this problem would be to conclude a new constitutional agreement under which all the provinces could determine new structures that would permit everyone to live in a more independent, free and happy way.
Mr. Speaker, when we are faced with the fact that the provinces themselves are accepting these proposals-and it is understood that a technical difficulty remains to be overcome-I do not see why we should repeat the same mistakes already made in Quebec when money from the federal government was refused in the name of basic principles. Finally, it turned out that this money was simply lost. Quebec never saw the colour of it and yet it had been paid by Quebec taxpayers as well as by taxpayers from other provinces.
So, this is why we are facing some sort of dilemma. If the government rules and administers the country in a dictatorial fashion and the provinces accept it, then there is nothing to be done about it. What would need to be done would precisely be to change the system basically. But when it comes to education the provinces should, of
March 16, 1972

course, have all the tax resources required under the present system in order to be able to administer their business as they see fit.
We already have this centralization that has always been exposed and we will indeed have an opportunity tomorrow to expose it even further in our opposition day, Mr. Speaker. This decentralization is not only necessary but in fact essential to this country. In a country as vast, as large as Canada, a country bigger than the United States and even Europe from a geographical point of view, let us not claim that we are in a position to control everything, to set everything, let us not claim that we can achieve serious coordination of all parts of a country as vast as ours. And this, all the more when the ethnic difference which should be taken into account underlines more clearly the need for decentralization.
Then, of course, the governor in council would make regulations defining certain expressions for the purposes of this act and I quote the relevant subparagraphs:
(iii)	the expressions "junior matriculation" and "post-secondary level",
(iv)	the expression "assisted, sponsored or contract research", and
(v)	the expression "operating expenditures incurred for postsecondary education" by or in respect of an educational institution or secondary institution;
Mr. Speaker, when we read through these subparagraphs, we realize that we are faced with an established fact, which is that the federal government is interfering, without any embarrassment, in matters that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
It is a fait accompli. I find this extremely unfortunate, and I feel we could remove the subparagraphs. But I do not think we will ever change anything with amendments of that type. So, until we are determined to change from the start the whole tax system, until we acknowledge the need for reform of our economy and our monetary system, in short, until we come to realize that we have to change our constitutional structure in order to give every area, every citizen or every group of citizens in this country the opportunity to become more liberated and to develop better, we will just be marking time, so to speak.
This is why I say that all those amendments that we want to propose would of course preserve a principle very dear to the heart of the province of Quebec, that of remaining in control of education. But I feel that this is only a small thing when we consider that the whole bill under study should have been amended-and this, within a process of general constitutional reform.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, reference has already been made to the obscurely worded amendments proposed by the official opposition. I make no comments on these amendments because they appear to bear very little relationship to the important points that were made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in advancing them. This is not the first time that opposition proposals have been badly related to the substance of the real issues before Parliament, but I think all of us here should be very concerned about the measure which is before us and about the judgments which have been placed on it by the university community.
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
I make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that it would be helpful to hon. members if they read the March 14 proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada made its presentation to the committee. Running all through that presentation was not only a clear note of concern and apprehension, but a clear note of warning that the present system of federal involvement in the financing of Canadian universities was open to serious question. My purpose in speaking in this debate is not to review all the intricacies of the discussion which took place in that committee and which has been carried on in greater detail throughout the country.
The present system of financing Canadian universities is for the provinces initially to set the standard, as it were, by determining how much money they will devote to university education in terms of operational expenses as defined in the regulations. When that determination is made, the federal government becomes a passive contributor of an equal amount of money. If a province chooses to spend a lot of money on university education, then it will follow that the federal government will spend a lot of money in that province. If another province decides to spend a lesser amount of money or, what is more important, a lesser percentage of its total expenditures on university education, then the federal contribution to university education in that province will be less. This leads to the obvious result which was underlined by the representatives of the universities and colleges, namely, that we do not have a common national standard of excellence in Canadian universities.
Without going into detail, Mr. Speaker, it was quite clear that the representatives of the universities and colleges were concerned because there were varying standards of quality in university education and that they were brought about because of differing financial resources. This is a matter which should be of great concern to us and really a principal reason for reviewing very carefully the basis of university financing in this country.
There is another concern which is growing and which is also a product not only of the financial arrangements described in this bill but of the financial assistance given to students pursuant to the student loans underwritten by the federal government, and the grants of assistance to students made by provincial governments. There is no question that the declining mobility of Canadian students from province to p: ovince is a feature of modern university life in this country. Canada benefited greatly from the fact that students from one province could be attracted to a university in another province.
We need every incentive we can find in this country to overcome our regional differences and parochial attitudes, but the present nature of university financing arrangements, coupled with the provisions for granting student assistance, puts more and more of a premium on students going to universities only in the province in which they reside. This to me is a trend which is not satisfactory and should not be encouraged.
Coupled with it is the fact that the present nature of university financing arrangements and student assistance
894

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act militates greatly against the entrance of foreign students. In provinces which are under great financial strain, the entrance of a foreign student to a university in the province probably represents an unwelcome financial charge and burden regardless of the contribution foreign students can make to the university life of Canada and through that university life to the whole of the community.
Another matter which greatly concerns the university community is the fact that all the financial assistance from public sources is funnelled to them through one channel. The evidence given by university representatives who appeared before the committee was to the effect that more than 80 per cent of the costs of operation of universities are now paid by the government and in all cases this money now reaches the universities through the provincial governments.
I believe the universities have good reason to be fearful of the erosion of their independence by reason of the tremendous concentration of fiscal power in the hands of the provincial governments. This would seem to be another good reason to look for alternative ways to provide fiscal assistance at the federal level for post-secondary education.
It is clear that there is no cow more sacred in our political history and in our constitution than that of education which, because of the inept wording of section 93 of the BNA Act, is presumed always and eternally to be a provincial responsibility. On the face of things it is impossible to believe that university education, the comprehension of knowledge at a high level and over a great scale, can in any sense be just a provincial responsibility. The mere fact that the universities have to find a location or physical site in various parts of the country is an accident which cannot be avoided and is not one which should be used to impose burdens upon university students no matter from what part of Canada they come.
I have contended vigorously for many years that the federal government should have an active role to play in university education. I am distressed to see that the report filed today by the constitution committee does not accord the federal government the hope of achieving a role of that kind, and retreats again into the ancient formula which assigns university education to the provinces just as if it were elementary school education in the year 1867.
We are fortunate that the arrangements being proposed here are of an interim nature. Obviously, we look to a better permanent arrangement for the future. I share entirely the apprehension of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that we may try to avoid the basic responsibility of parliament to university education merely by the assigning of tax points or tax room to the provinces. We must do more than that if we are to achieve the full potential of university education in this country for the benefit of all our citizens and for the benefit of the nation.
The question of the future financing of university education in Canada is, I believe, too important to be left to private discussions between ministers of the federal government and the provincial governments. I hope very serious consideration will be given to the submission made by the Association of Universities and Colleges to the federal government and to the council of ministers,

federal and provincial, which I understand was prepared and filed in the autumn of 1971. Among other things, this submission, as reported at page 244 of the March 14 report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, recommends that there be a separate, countrywide study of the subject of financing higher education in Canada. It recommends that the terms of reference for such a study should include the following areas of concern:
1.	the role and responsibilities of universities in the contemporary Canadian society;
2.	the distribution of the financial costs and responsibilities as between governments and students and between federal and provincial governments, and the financial devices by which the desired distribution could be effected;
3.	regional disparities in educational opportunities and appropriate devices for eliminating them;
4.	universal accessibility and student support;
5.	role of the federal authority in support of research, student mobility, graduate study, and foreign students;
6.	ways of achieving provincial, regional and national co-ordination of activities, ways of achieving economies in university operations and ways of preventing unnecessary proliferation.
Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for moving the amendment which has provided an opportunity for this important discussion. As I said at the beginning, his amendment regrettably bears little relevance to the matters I have discussed and the matters raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, but I say in all seriousness to this House that one of the most important items we must decide in the future is a better and revised way of financing university education in Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)- Agriculture-Potatoes-Response to representations for action to relieve depressed market-Possible diversion to stock feed; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Dispute with NABET-Request that CBC engage in meaningful negotiations; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Criminal Code-Abolition of capital punishment- review by parliament during present session.
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 motions, private bills and public bills.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been discussions among the parties on both sides of the House and there has been agreement to ask for unanimous consent to call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-164. I would therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to proceed.
March 16, 1972


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-164, to incorporate United Bank of Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, at this report stage of Bill C-164 I should like to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-164 be amended by substituting the word "unity" or "l'unite", as the case may be, in the title thereof for the word "united" or "unie" and elsewhere in the bill as required.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unanimous consent is required to move the amendment at this point, notice not having been given. Is there consent that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) be allowed to move the amendment at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Haidasz: Then I so move, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Haidasz) agreed to.


Stanley Haidasz: that Bill C-164, to incorporate Unity Bank of Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to make a few brief comments at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion before the House is on the report stage of the bill. The hon. member might wish to deal with it at a subsequent stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, unless I reserve my position completely. The fact is that we are debating the bill this afternoon by consent. I want to point out a practice which seems to have arisen in the filing of reports by various chairmen of committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member is rising on a point of order?
Private Bills


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is right, Mr. Speaker. Today the report was tabled and it included the provision that the evidence and the minutes of the committee be tabled therewith. The committee completed its deliberations at one o'clock this afternoon, and the report was deficient; I will not say misleading. I have been told, and I have ascertained it, that many chairmen are doing this. I would say that that is totally wrong.
A committee chairman can come here with the report of the committee and the evidence and the minutes of the meetings attached to it. Then hon. members must wait 48 hours before they can discuss the report, unless it is done by consent. This business of trying to slide things through must stop. Hon. members are being asked to decide on a motion before the House not having had one moment's opportunity to look at the evidence. There is no way that we can do this.
I am raising this as a point of order as I do not particularly want to pick out the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I take it that this happened on a previous occasion with Bill C-8. I know this because the transcript of the evidence of last Tuesday morning was published only this morning just before ten o'clock. It was certainly not available when the report of the committee was tabled last Tuesday. As I said, this is happening with other committee chairmen who have come here with reports from their committees. That is against the rules, and I think we should stick to the rules in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members know that we are on a point of order. The motion before the House is for adoption at the report stage. I can only put the motion with the unanimous consent of hon. members, and I take it the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has indicated, for the reasons he has expressed, that he is not giving his consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker; I am giving my consent under the circumstances, but I wanted to raise the point of order because this should not happen again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for clarifying the point. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Haidasz: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to make a few comments with regard to this proposal. It is not often that we get a bill before the House to incorporate a bank. This is one of the few occasions that have been reserved for private bills following the change in our procedure. Following the amendment, the bank is now called the Unity Bank of Canada. I must say that having gone through all sorts of travail in the committee this morning and votes on the word "United", I do not think the soup could be spoiled more than by this change of name. How-
896

March 16, 1972
Private Bills
ever, the incorporators want it that way and it is their problem. I am glad I do not have to support it.
With regard to this bank, subject to the requirements of the Bank Act, the provisional directors and the organizers of the bank will have to endeavour to convince the public that it will be worth while investing in their shares and that they will meet all the necessary requirements. I hope we will not have any difficulty with funds that are advanced by prospective shareholders should the matter not come to fruition, as was the case with the Bank of Western Canada. I do not think Canada can really stand one more of those.
However, if the provisional directors of this concern are able to get together a satisfactory management team, men who will be skilled in the business of banking-and that is not something that is picked up from textbooks or from reading newspapers; it requires many years of downright hard experience and courage-I hope that it will prosper. I will not say any more about what I feel with regard to the bank, but I hope they are able to make a go of it on the basis of a business unadorned by the peripheral considerations that may have entered into the discussions during the promotion of this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is disposition among hon. members to take up item No. 17 on page 7 of today's order paper, the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I
wonder if I may confirm what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and add a word to it. Your Honour will note from the order paper that this item has had 57 minutes of debate, which means that there could be another 43 minutes, following which it is our intention to ask for a recorded vote.
I think you will find there is agreement among the parties that, if Your Honour is prepared to do so, you can consider we have now had the hour and a half of debate provided in the rules, so that there can be two speeches, a five minute reply from the government side, which I understand will be made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, after which the mover of the motion would like to take his final five minutes and then we could have the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. parliamentary secretary speaking to the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. parliamentary secretary will excuse me for a moment, the Chair will ask if there is consent to the procedure outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and perhaps we should add that prior motions be permitted to stand and reserve their place. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Burton:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of a description of the area which the federal government would like to see incorporated in the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan to be situated in the Val Marie-Killdeer area.
Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this government's aim is to create, with the co-operation of the government of the province of Saskatchewan, a new national park in the short grass prairie area in the southern part of that province. Negotiations are continuing between the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Natural Resources of the province of Saskatchewan. The channels of communication are open, but there are still several questions to be resolved before agreement is reached. In all negotiations with provincial governments concerning the establishment of national parks, it is the responsibility of the provincial government, once agreement has been reached on all aspects of creation of the park, to acquire and transfer the lands within the agreed boundary, whether they be provincial Crown lands or private lands, to the federal government for national park purposes.
Agreement on precise boundaries for this proposed park has not been reached. The delineation of boundaries is only one aspect of negotiations concerning the creation of a national park. Resource potential, natural features and possible effects on persons living and working in or near the proposed park area must all be considered together and by the two governments.
The release of information about one aspect of the present negotiations could seriously prejudice the possible outcome as it would be a breach of confidentiality always maintained in negotiations of this nature. This is even more important as the province is responsible for the eventual transfer of lands in general. Before a provincial government agrees to a precise boundary and transfers land for the purpose of a national park, it will decide upon its own priorities between various possible uses of the land. Boundaries considered in negotiations between the federal government and a provincial government are assessed in the light of these provincial priorities and therefore the feeling is that the federal government cannot unilaterally at this point disclose details of these negotiations.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Parliamentary
March 16, 1972

Secretary to the Minister of Finance who gave quite a concise and objective statement of the state of affairs, as I understand them, involving the negotiations for this particular park. I commend him for it. I should like to note, however, that one of his points was there would have to be negotiations to obtain the title to land which is not Crown land, land already in the name of the province of Saskatchewan. The fact is, however, that most of the land under consideration is presently owned by the Crown; very little is privately held, although a portion of the Crown land is under lease for grazing purposes at this time.
There is no question that many people would like to see a park created in this part of the province. A good deal of information has been made available by the government on this subject, and the last time it was discussed I pointed out that, in response to a motion for papers, I received a two-inch thick volume of material. This has been very useful to me and to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) in whose constituency most of the land is located. I received further information in response to one of the particulars contained in the material delivered in response to this motion for papers.
The purpose of this motion is that we would like to have a map or description of the area which the federal government is proposing to include in the park. The parliamentary secretary says that he cannot make it available, that it would release information on one aspect of the negotiations. This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that a good many of the local residents know a great deal about what is going on at the present time. I have no objection to that, but there are a good many rumours going around as well about what is taking place and some of these could be set to rest if the government were prepared to give adequate information. As I think the parliamentary secretary implied, the livelihood of some of the residents in that area will be affected but he says that we cannot get the map.
Mr. Speaker, I know a private individual personally who went to the minister's office and said he would like to get more information on this park. The minister was very co-operative and referred him to one of his officials who showed him a map of that area. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the government is denying members of this House the right to have access to that map. I suppose we could go around the back way and get the map, but I suggest that as a matter of right members should have access to it.
Another aspect of this subject was discussed last Thursday when, at page 689 of Hansard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Sulatycky) is recorded as saying:
We are simply waiting for the provincial government of Saskatchewan to acquire the land in an unencumbered state and transfer it to the federal government so that a second national park may be established in Saskatchewan-
I should like to put on record a news release issued by the Minister of National Resources for the Province of Saskatchewan subsequent to that statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allowed to him by special order has expired. According to the same order, it is my duty to put the question to the House.
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


An hon. Member:: There are not enough of them!


Mr. Gilbert:: Justice triumphs!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Am I to understand that the order also contemplated calling it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is true, Mr. Speaker. We had expected to have to take a recorded vote which would have taken us to six o'clock. Since that has not been necessary we suggest you call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hour appointed for consideration of Private Members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.21 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 1 of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
[Stage Direction]
March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the subject which was raised in this debate by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) and by my colleague from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). This is a subject which was raised when the bill was discussed in the finance committee. It is a subject which has caused me such concern that I have debated earnestly with myself whether I should support the amendment now before us. I find it difficult to understand the amendment although it has been explained to me. I understand it generally.
I have another reservation in respect of this package which is Bill C-8. After all, it is a package proposal. It has been introduced following negotiations. In a sense, it is a document negotiated between the federal government and provincial governments. For that reason I have decided to support the legislation. However, I must tell the Minister of State (Mr. Mahoney) of my grave concern over the situation which the federal government is proposing. I ask the minister if he can assure us that the government is equally concerned about this problem. In the 24 months' period of the present arrangements is there some hope of raising this matter with the provinces? In other words, will the position that I will describe in a moment be brought forward and, hopefully, will something be done about it?
First let me tell the House what the problem is. Under the present fiscal arrangements which are being continued for five years under this legislation we, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, pay half the costs of operating the universities of this country. That is to say, universities are administered in the normal way, the provincial ministers are responsible for the contributions which their governments make, the provincial governments determine the extent of university operating costs and the taxpayers of Canada, through the federal parliament, pay half the bill.
Times have changed since I went to university, and that was not too long ago. However, when witnesses from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada appeared before us I learned something I did not know, namely, that a policy is developing throughout this country, and in some places it is being implemented of charging higher fees for university students who come from outside the province. This is a proposal in Quebec and British Columbia. A student from another part of Canada who comes to a university in those provinces will be charged $2,500, for example, for one year's tuition whereas a student resident in the province may be charged only $400 or $500 for exactly the same course.
I can understand why the provinces are doing this. I understand why pressure is being put on the universities to restrict entrance, in effect, to residents of their province. It is an entirely fiscal problem, the problem of financing the universities, but I suggest it is a self-defeating operation. In the long run, provinces which exclude out-of province students by charging very high fees will find their policies being adopted by other provinces. We will end up with a situation where Canadian students will not be able to travel to universities which they would like to attend, because of barriers created by provincial poli-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
cies in the field of education. I oppose these policies and as a Canadian I am very concerned about them. It is good for our universities to welcome students from all parts of Canada and, although it is another issue, they should welcome students from outside our country. It enriches our university community and our country to have this kind of mix. In a country that is concerned about national unity and is as diverse and widespread as ours, for the federal government to watch a development taking place that will prevent students from across this country from having maximum access to higher education is completely wrong.
I know the other argument, that education is a provincial matter. We know the problems that developed when Premier Duplessis refused to accept very nominal amounts offered by the federal government because of the fear they might be followed up by conditions as to the way the money should be spent. Such conditions might be imposed but I say this without hesitation because of my concern that the provinces are embarking on a course that is destructive of national unity. This course will weaken our universities and will weaken Canada; I object to this arrangement.
I would like the federal government to do something about this, but on the other hand I understand it is a negotiated agreement. It will last for only two years so I do not intend to oppose it. I would like to know that the government of Canada is concerned about this problem and that we will not support universities which have a policy of excluding Canadians living outside a province from attending university in the province. I do not think the taxpayers of Canada want that kind of policy to develop. I understand why the provinces are doing this. I know the position they are in, but I do not think we who represent the people of Canada should sit back, pay half the bill and let this development take place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, although this is my amendment, by arrangement with my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), I let him speak first. To that extent I have drawn some opprobrium as to the nature of my amendment. I want to point out to hon. members who may be baffled by some of the complexities of procedural amendments, and so forth, what I have done. As a matter of fact, the Chair has reversed the position of my amendments. Amendment No. 2 should have been No. 1; that would have made quite clear my purpose in introducing the amendments.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and one or two members have wondered about my amendment which appears as No. 1. If there had not been that amendment- it is about the only possible amendment having to do with this feature of education-they could not have made their speeches at this stage. It was for the purpose of bringing forward the point of view that hon. members have expressed supporting the cause of AUCC in this House; otherwise, it would only have appeared in the transcript of the proceedings of the finance committee which is read by a miniscule number of persons. In fact, it only appeared at ten o'clock this morning.
This is a point of view that has found favour. The purpose of this amendment was to give us the framework
March 16, 1972

or a base for discussion on a point which has found favour on both sides of the House. Perhaps if members looked a little closer at these amendments we would not get statements that only display a lack of knowledge with regard to procedural amendments.
The reason I want this and the other amendment discussed is to reiterate the point of view put forward in part by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the other day on second reading. This appears at page 438 of Hansard. We discussed the degree of negotiation that takes place under federal-provincial financial agreements. There is a great picture painted. The minister stated this afternoon that the regulations were made after consultation; then he said after "information" to the provinces. "Information" is the word, not "consultation."
This bill represents an agreement reached between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces. However, they failed to see that the whole of clause 32 unilaterally reserves power to the government of Canada to change the guts of this agreement, the heart and core, by making regulations which only it has to consider without calling in the provinces.
I now wish to turn to the definition of the revenue base, the expressions "revenue source," "junior matriculation" and "post-secondary level." We are talking about part VI of the act. When the federal government has the unilateral power of defining expressions such as "junior matriculation," "post-secondary level," "assisted, sponsored or contract research" and, finally, "operating expenditures incurred for post-secondary education by or in respect of an education institution or secondary institution", it can decide what expenditures it will support and what expenditures it will not support.
It is said the provinces have agreed. But any of the provincial ministers of finance or their equivalents will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they were most unhappy about this agreement. However, there was nothing they could do about it. This is why I have brought forward the amendment we are considering, to show that this is not what was said by the Minister of Finance or by his supporters in the government. I believe the provinces are definitely unhappy about many features of this arrangement, but there is nothing they can do about it. They are caught. This is why, during the committee meetings, there was all this talk about additional domination by the federal government during every period of renegotiation.
I wish to support what has been said today by my hon. friend from Fundy Royal, by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) in their strictures against the growing practice of some of the provinces to talk as though we shall see the balkanization of post-secondary education, that we shall see graduated fees coming into effect for residents and non-residents or, what is even worse, that something terrible will be done with foreign students. I have never heard anything so chauvinistic as this idea.
There are different kinds of universities, some teaching disciplines which are not taught in certain provinces. Some students prefer to attend smaller universities. Why not? After all, the government of Canada rebates through
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
the ceding of the four points of income tax almost 50 per cent of the provincial contribution to post-secondary education. But since this is assimilated into the revenues of the provinces, the provinces seem to think they contribute all this money. This is not the case.

One of the things we must avoid at all costs during the period of two years during which a new arrangement is being arrived at is the balkanization of post-secondary education. It may cost the government of Canada something more. No; I should say, rather, that it may cost the Canadian taxpayer more. I find it extraordinary that the provinces should make representations vis-a-vis the government of Canada or vis-a-vis other governments as though they were acting for foreigners, for strangers and gaining advantage for certain people as opposed to others.
I saw an instance of this the other day, expressed in headlines as the words of Premier Bourassa-that he had achieved "a triple victory over Ottawa." A victory on behalf of whom, against whom? A victory on behalf of Canadian citizens against other Canadian citizens? That is a shameful statement to make. It is a shameful attitude to hold. No Canadians can score a victory over other Canadians in such matters. We all pay the same taxes and we are all entitled to the same services. There are different administrations, different regional considerations, but I do not for one moment concede any strength or validity to those arguments.
It is for this reason I put forward the amendment. I do not intend to press it on the House. I trust that having now provided a forum for the discussion of this point, the House will permit me to withdraw amendment No. 1 and then consider amendment No. 2, to which I propose to speak very briefly. My seconder is not here at the moment but I know he would have no objection to this course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion which has just been made. Is it agreed that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) be permitted to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Lambert) withdrawn.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: motion No. 2 as follows:
-That Bill C-8, an act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, be amended by adding in clause 32 after the word "Act" in line 4 on page 31 the following: "provided that any regulation made pursuant to any of the above paragraphs shall be subject to a negative resolution adopted by not less than the majority of the provinces both in number and in population at the first plenary session of first ministers of Canada and the provinces or of their respective finance ministers following the making of the said regulation."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the Chair recognizes the mover of the motion, may I say I have some doubt about its procedural acceptability. Hon. members might be prepared to assist the Chair in this respect.
Perhaps the best way to say what I wish to say is by first of all reading part of clause 32:
The governor in council may make regulations-

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act (g) generally for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act.
As I understand the proposed motion, it would provide that such regulations be subject to a negative resolution adopted by not less than a majority of the provinces, and so on.
Two matters arise for consideration. The first does not cause me much concern at this point. I am referring, now, to the somewhat unusual constitutional aspect of a group or body outside the federal authority in effect rescinding or vetoing an order in council. It does seem to me that this is a matter of importance, possibly one involving constitutional law. Though I would be pleased to hear representations with regard to it, I would not at this point wish to rule the motion out of order procedurally on that basis because I think it is a matter of law rather than a matter of procedure.
The second point is one which does cause considerable concern from a procedural standpoint, namely, whether or not the amendment is of a substantive nature; whether giving provincial ministers of finance authority to suspend or veto the operation of an order in council is really a matter of a substantive nature which is outside the clause the amendment purports to amend. I have no fixed opinion on the matter, but it is something with regard to which I should like to hear representations if hon. members are prepared to assist the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all dispose of the difficulties facing you on the first point. With the greatest respect, it is not the duty of the Chair to rule on the constitutionality or otherwise of a particular motion or matter. I put it to you that this House having given power to a particular body to make an order in council, can just as easily provide that some other body review that order in council and annul it if necessary. The governor in council has no power to make an order in council under the act unless that power is given by this House; and I suggest that what has been given can also be taken away.
Under the Statutory Instruments Act, this House has already provided for an overriding veto by the House, following certain procedures, in connection with orders in council. To my mind it has always been the greatest abuse of the privileges of the House for the governor in council to say that once the House has given authority to pass an order in council, that is the end of the matter and no further review is possible. That is entirely wrong. As I have said, having given the right to do something, the House can take that right away. In this particular case, in giving the governor in council the power to pass certain orders in council the House can certainly grant the right of review to some other body. This is what the amendment provides for.
In regard to the second point raised by Your Honour as to whether this is a substantive matter, we are talking here about the power to review an order in council affecting an agreement embodied in this statute. An agreement presupposes consent of both parties to the agreement. So far as orders in council are concerned, one party arrogates unto itself the exclusive power to make and to

amend the agreement. This House is the ultimate authority in regard to the agreement that is entered into by the governor in council. This House has provided that the governor in council may make orders in council, but that they shall be subject to review on behalf of the other contracting party to that agreement or order in council by convening a meeting of first ministers, including the representative of the government of Canada, or of ministers of finance, including the Minister of Finance of the government of Canada.
Yesterday I asked the President of the Privy Council when action was going to be taken to put into the effect the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, which I know is going to be blazoned forth as one of the jewels of some studded crown. The Statutory Instruments Act will be trotted out as some sort of an achievement. I submit not one thing has been done about implementing that statute. So far as the House is concerned, no motion has been introduced. This is what I was objecting to during the passage of the bill, and my colleagues objected as well. We said that the initiative under the Statutory Instruments Act would rest entirely with the government, both as to the composition of the committee and as to amending the rules to make the necessary provision. The Statutory Instruments Act calls for a change to the rules, and this is where we got the definition of a negative resolution. At one time I made reference to that in my motion but I thought it would introduce further complications and procedural arguments.
I have presented this amendment merely because of the default of the government. Yesterday the President of the Privy Council told me he would have to take my question as notice because he did not know the answer. If you were a betting man, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to bet you $10 that we will not see any motions presented by the government until after a certain event. This parliament will not see any steps taken in regard to the Statutory Instruments Act until then.
The Minister of State was quite right when he said he recognized that I opposed this type of clause giving blanket authority to make orders in council. I understand, just as well as he or anybody in this House, the efficacy of having the ability to make regulations under a statute. But I object to giving blanket power to make regulations of all kinds under a statute without the power of review.
Since the government refuses to make any move under the Statutory Instruments Act to place regulations under review, I have to provide an alternative and this is the purpose of my amendment. I put it to you that on that score, supported by the arguments I put forward, my motion is acceptable. If there has to be any argument or debate on this particular point, I hope that some government spokesman will come forward on behalf of the governor in council and tell the House when a motion will be presented to set up the appropriate committee under the Statutory Instruments Act and to change the rules to that effect.
Last year we went through an exercise in total futility.
I do not think this House should be played with. I do not think it should be taken through this sort of exercise and
March 16, 1972

left without recourse. It is for these reasons that I feel this amendment is quite in order. It does not introduce any substantive matter beyond merely the procedure of reviewing the effects of a power granted under a particular provision of the legislation.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, you have asked for comments on the procedural aspects of the amendment. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that it lies within the power of parliament to call for a review by an appropriate body of any delegated authority which it may grant to the governor in council or indeed to any other body. I do not think the question is whether it lies within the power of parliament to adopt this but, rather, whether this particular suggestion is appropriate to the operations and principle of the bill as it now stands. Perhaps one of my colleagues will have some remarks to make on the subject of whether or not this is a substantive matter, but I wish to point out that I am concerned about two points.
First, the amendment purports to vest in a body called the "plenary session of first ministers of Canada" powers which this body does not now have. Unions of first ministers or finance ministers have no power to take or implement collective decisions. In each instance this is merely a consultative body and the decision-making process relates entirely to individual undertakings to do or not to do certain things with respect to their legislative masters. This applies to first ministers and finance ministers.
Therefore there is no procedure now, there has not been in the past, nor do I think there is any envisaged whereby this grouping, this coming together of either first ministers or finance ministers, could or should take collective decisions binding on anyone, whether by a formal vote or an informal vote, weighted or unweighted and without a very substantial reorganization, not only of the modus operandi but also of the purposes of meetings of first ministers and of finance ministers. I do not think this particular suggestion would work. On that ground, rather than proposing an unworkable suggestion I would hope the hon. member for Edmonton West would withdraw his amendment.
I said I was concerned about two things, Mr. Speaker. The second one is that the hon. member indicated that his purpose in doing this was to compel the government to take action in quite a different arena. This is a subject which I suggest should be tackled and settled on its own merits, without making use of this particular piece of legislation as a means of forcing the government to take action which the hon. member has suggested is urgent and necessary and which has not been approached with the speed and diligence with which he feels it should be approached.
If I understood his words correctly, he would be quite prepared not to proceed with this amendment if he were to get his view accepted by the government with respect to action in relation to another piece of legislation. In recognition of the fact that his suggestion would not work, again I suggest that the hon. member might wish to withdraw his amendment. Also, procedurally I question whether the amendment is in order, given the fact that its purpose is not merely to change the operation of this bill but really to get government action in another field.
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless other hon. members wish to make submissions on the procedural point, the Chair is prepared to rule on the procedural acceptability of the motion put before the House for its consideration. As I indicated in my initial remarks, I was not seriously concerned about the constitutional question of giving authority to a body outside of the federal authority, if I may use that term again. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and, I believe, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) did not disagree with him, said that this is a question of law that is not the concern of the Chair. I raised it only in a preliminary fashion so that hon. members would have it in mind and so that if they felt I was in error in that respect they could argue the point. I need not deal further with that aspect.
The second point in my preliminary remarks concerned the substantive nature of the motion and whether it was in fact beyond the four corners of the clause of the bill that we have before us. Again, I do not think the President of the Treasury Board has any quarrel with the hon. member for Edmonton West, and indeed I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman in this respect. I think we are in agreement that there is no question but that it lies within the power of parliament to provide for a review of regulations when it makes provision for their enactment. Of course, it is within the authority of parliament to provide for a review or check on those regulations. So I do not have any concern about that matter.
My only concern is whether or not the check or the veto, if I may call it such, which is provided for in the motion goes beyond the scope of the clause of the bill that the House has before it. The hon. member for Edmonton West argued with respect to the Statutory Instruments Act and appeared to be critical of the government on that point. I am not going to base my decision on his argument in that respect. The President of the Treasury Board indicated that if the hon. member for Edmonton West was chastising the government for its inaction in certain other areas, he should not use this particular vehicle. I agree with that.
That leaves me with the consideration of whether or not the motion before the chamber is of a substantive nature, that is, whether it goes beyond the scope of the clause that it purports to amend. It is quite a substantial change, but I am going to allow the motion because it does seem to me that while the authority respecting the veto may be substantially different than the power given to the governor in council, I would not want to say as to what degree or where a checking power, if I may use that term, a power of vetoing or checking the authority given to the governor in council goes beyond the authority contemplated in the bill. In other words, I would not want to say at what point the authority to provide a check or veto goes beyond the original thought of parliament in enacting the clause of the statute. For those reasons I shall allow the amendment. The motion has been put to the chamber and it is not necessary for me to read it again unless hon. members wish me to do so. It is before the chamber for debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I shall not impose on the House much longer. Arising out of the discussion we have had, I should like to say that the purpose of my amendment is that any negative resolution,
902

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act as I indicated in my motion, would not ipso facto have the effect of negativing the order in council, but I think no governor in council faced with a negative resolution would dare maintain such a regulation. That is a point which would have to be considered, obviously, by the governor in council. It seems to me it is inherent that if there is to be an agreement there is much to be said for it being between equals. Yet in the statute which embodies the agreement maybe 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the power is reserved unilaterally to the governor in council without consultation with or consent of the provinces. This I find fundamentally wrong.
If there is something that has to be highlighted on behalf of the provinces, then so be it. After all, I would hope that during the course of this debate either the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) or the Minister of State (Mr. Mahoney) could give us an undertaking on behalf of the government with regard to the other matter of the Statutory Instruments Act. I have raised this question because the Statutory Instruments Act applies to clause 32 of the bill. It is to apply to every section of every act authorizing the governor in council to make regulations.
Months have now passed since the passage of the act, and nothing concrete has been done. It may be that through, shall we say, informal channels some work has been done, but nothing has been done with regard to this or any other act and the House is being asked to pass this bill giving the governor in council carte-blanche again. The governor in council may make regulations generally for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of the act, with some other definitions in between. There is- no undertaking with regard to the Statutory Instruments Act. Parliament passed the Statutory Instruments Act and it is now law. Yet we have the governor in council defying the law that this House passed and then coming along and saying, "Give to the governor in council full power again to make statutory instruments, but we deny to parliament the right to review what this provides for." I say that is unacceptable to this House.
It behooves the government to now tell us when we will have positive action and will see the resolutions with regard to the setting up of the committee under the Statutory Instruments Act and all the appropriate changes in the rules so that they can be carried out. Beyond this I have nothing to add to my argument. This is the purpose of my argument: we must have some form of review of statutory instruments. I would think that if we in Parliament cannot provide for a review then we should let the people who are chiefly concerned, the representatives of the provinces, have the right to review regulations.
Remember, this is not a suspensory form of resolution. The regulation has effect unless revoked. It cannot be revoked at some indefinite time in the future but, rather, at the first plenary session of either first ministers of the provinces and of Canada or the finance ministers of the provinces and of Canada. We have a problem which I want to highlight with my amendment and I hope the House will support me.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, if we need any arguments to support the proposition that the motion should be defeated, the hon. member for

Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who proposed it has certainly given them to us. Really, we are being asked to entertain a very serious amendment to a very serious bill that forms the financial framework of our confederation because of his dissatisfaction with what he feels is lack of action by the government in bringing forth procedures under an entirely different piece of legislation, the Statutory Instruments Act.
I would not denigrate for a moment the seriousness or importance of that act but I do not feel, as important as it may be, that that type of dissatisfaction stands as a valid ground for making unworkable the financial arrangements which exist between the federal government and the provinces on shared-cost programs. This is a curious, if not astonishing amendment to put before the Parliament of Canada. Basically, of course, it would give to provincial governments, provincial cabinets and provincial first ministers-not provincial legislatures and not provincial members-a veto power over changes in a federal program or a series of federal programs.
"The first plenary session of the first ministers of Canada and the provinces" is the expression used in the amendment. Unlike the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the provinces, the first plenary session of the first ministers of Canada is not something that is bound to meet at any particular time. There have been in our history periods when there have been years between meetings of provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. There have been other periods in recent years, of course, when these meetings have been very frequent.
It is possible that the financial arrangements on which our confederation is largely based could be established on a basis that the federal government could put forward the regulations and continue the operation of these programs for a period of months or years, and then find that the next plenary session of this particular group could nullify the whole operation. This would be totally unacceptable. This is an exercise in charity and I do, in charity, thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for bringing forward these two amendments, the one that has been withdrawn and the one we are now considering, because they have given members on all sides of the House an opportunity to express their views on very serious matters.
The question of post-secondary education dealt with under the previous amendment specifically is one which must be of great concern to us. I suppose it should be noted that while the bulk of the particular programs that are envisaged under this bill are continued for five years, the post-secondary education program under part VI of the bill is continued for two years only. Obviously, this is a matter that is now under review and under discussion with the provincial governments.
The balkanization of Canada in respect of post-secondary education or in any other respect is not an objective of the federal government. From that point of view I thank the hon. member for bringing these amendments before the House because it has given all of us an opportunity to debate them. However, the amendments per se are manifestly not acceptable, are manifestly unworkable and perhaps having accomplished the purpose for which they
March 16, 1972

were brought forward, namely, to permit debate in specific areas, the proper thing to do, if the hon. member does not propose to withdraw this one as he did the last, would be to get on with it and defeat them so that we can make sure that these very valuable and worth while fiscal arrangements which exist between the federal government and the provinces of Canada will continue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister permit a question? He defined federal programs as programs which could be affected by the group of provincial premiers. Perhaps he would look at the title of the bill and see that it is the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Does he not agree that this is an embodiment of an agreement between the federal and provincial governments?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course but it is a federal program which is proposed to and accepted by the provinces. It is a program that has evolved over the years in a co-operative spirit and one that has worked very well. Nevertheless, it is a program that is based on federal initiatives and as such it is a federal program.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to lend my support to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because it seems to me that it has the effect of placing a certain power in the hands of the provinces which does not properly rest with them and should not properly rest with them. I think we should hesitate to adopt any step where the actions of the government of Canada could be vetoed by the actions of not just the legislatures but by the ministers of the provinces concerned, as was pointed out by the Minister of State (Mr. Mahoney).
It seems to me that this would be a totally faulty principle on which to carry on the operations of the federal government. It would be a totally faulty principle for this Parliament to adopt. But having said that, I think that there is a valid area of concern which should be noted by the House. It is, as was pointed out originally in the second reading debate by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that there is a greater degree of flexibility left in the legislation as compared to previous legislation in this field, that some of the details, some of the particulars of the new formula and the new legislation are to be worked out through regulations. While this has a certain amount of merit because of obvious difficulties and problems in dealing with a very complex problem, I think it does pose some concerns for members of parliament in terms of our exercise as legislators on behalf of the people of Canada in the control of the expenditure of money, because in fact what we are doing by allowing some definitions in other areas to be spelled out in regulations is to determine in a much more precise way than is contained in the legislation the extent to which the federal government will be making payments to the provinces.
It is the case that even some of the principles involved in making payments to the provinces are not fully spelled out, that in fact some of the principles involved in making payments to the provinces and carrying on the various programs contained within this package of legislation will have to be spelled out by regulations. Thus, there is no control by the Parliament of Canada over some of the
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
money that in fact will be spent as a result of the authority granted under this legislation.
It seems to me that there is a deficiency in the legislation and that possibly there has not been adequate consideration of this point so far in the debate on the bill. It would be much more in keeping with the concern which I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West was attempting to express if we were to accept an amendment which would give parliament a greater right of veto over regulations that may subsequently be established, to have such power of veto exercised within the time period that is relevant to the passage of these regulations and which would not be delayed for a considerable period of time.
I hope that in time we will find some way to deal with this problem through the legislation, namely, to provide for whatever degree of flexibility may be necessary and desirable in the legislation while at the same time ensuring that we as members of parliament exercise a proper degree of control and authority over the spending of public money. I am not sure that that has been accomplished in the bill which is before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add to what my colleague has said just two or three sentences. I find it a strange piece of irony that last year the former minister of justice with great fanfare piloted through the House the legislation known as the Statutory Instruments Act. We remember still how keen he was and how sincere he seemed as he expressed the desire that parliament would have the chance to exercise its authority with regard to the growing use of the power of regulation, the power of order in council. Now we have before us a bill in the name of the same individual, the very same person, who is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and yet no provision has been made for the powers that were brought before us last year with such fanfare to be used with respect to this bill. To me this is sheer irony.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having ventilated the question, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment. Certainly I would not divide the House if we could get on to third reading. But I am disappointed that we could not get an indication from the minister that he would take some action under the Statutory Instruments Act. The government can rest assured they are going to be badgered and pushed around by us with regard to the point until they do something.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, the very same minister popped all the buttons off his shirt in the pride he had in piloting the Statutory Instruments Act through the House. I should think he would now cover his head in sackcloth and ashes for the government so far as that action is concerned.
With the consent of the House I should like to withdraw the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) be allowed to withdraw motion No. 2 which has appeared in his name at the report stage of Bill C-8?

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) withdrawn.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-8, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt that dominion-provincial conferences which deals with various matters are becoming more and more a concern on the governmental scene and that the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures have somewhat less significant roles to play.
If we were philosophers we would simply see this as constitutional change in our time because the constitution is, after all, more than 100 years old. As politicians, though, I think we would like to see more of the action in our own arena. We long to have more clout with regard to some of the great arguments of the day, instead of seeing the marvellous postures that various federal people or various provincial premiers and their ministers adopt in negotiations in public and then, when faced with something like the current piece of legislation, no matter what they said about each other or to each other find out about the buddy-buddy system that has been reached in federal-provincial horse-trading which goes on behind the scenes. One becomes a little wary and perhaps more eager, if more frustrated, to discuss some of the subjects that form the basis of federal-provincial agreements.
We in this party make no apology for the accent we put on federal moneys available for higher education at the second reading debate, in the study by the finance committee, and on the motion that has been presented earlier for discussion at the report stage. Some of us have a feeling that the federal authority and the provincial authorities are treating the costs of higher education as one would treat the juggling of eggs-one would wish to put them aside, one would wish to have some control over their rather fragile nature. The fact is that this is a nettle that has to be grasped by both provincial and federal governments and it is a nettle that concerns us very much in this Parliament.
One of the thoughtful presentations, and indeed the only presentation that came from outside sources on this particular bill came to us because the hon. member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Fairweather) thought that we should hear from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, so they appeared before us. I should like to place some of their comments on record in addition to what was placed on the record earlier. In a submission regarding federally-supported universities and colleges of Canada that was made to the government of Canada by the Council of Ministers of Education and is appendix B to issue No. 2 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, at page 37 the AUCC brief reads:
We are concerned that there be adequate support for higher education in the face of the projected increases in enrolments, the growing need for research support and facilities to foster the cultural, economic and social requirements of the country as a whole and its regions, the need to reduce the regional disparities across the country and the need to make provision for the mobility of the Canadian population. Moreover, the question of the number of foreign students the universities of Canada should accept is related to Canadian external policy.
We sense a growing demand for continuing university education on a full time and part time basis for retraining, upgrading and for general educational advancement. It is our conviction that universities must prepare for a much deeper involvement in continuing higher education than they have in the past.
That covers a fair amount of waterfront. It deals with the preoccupation of being good citizens in the world at large and being of some help to developing countries as well as concern about our own country. The brief goes on to meet one of the great issues of our time which has not yet been successfully dealt with in this parliament:
There appears to be a growing demand, reflected in our projections, on the part of women for further education to prepare them more adequately for increasing participation in the economic and community activities of society, more informed participation in the activities of the home, and for personal satisfaction. Nevertheless, there are constraints which discourage women, regardless of their ability, from entering university. These constraints include cultural and social attitudes respecting the obligations of women, fewer job opportunities, lower rates of pay and the like.
Mr. Speaker, before redistribution in 1968 I had the honour of representing five or six universities. Under the new boundary arrangements, Halifax-East Hants has only one university, Mount St. Vincent, which is a university largely for women so I am striking a blow for them this evening. What will be the demands on the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the various provinces over the next decade from the standpoint of financing the costs of higher education? I admit that this subject makes any minister of finance nervous, whether federal or provincial, because the costs have gone up a great deal. I really cannot see that any restraint or constraint can be placed upon them. This is something that has to be faced, and that money has to be provided. At page 39 of the report the association makes the following projection: in 1958-59 full-time enrolment at universities was 95,000; in 1968-69 it had increased threefold to 293,600; in 1975-76 it is projected to reach 560,000, and in 1980-81, 750,000 almost an eightfold increase as compared with the enrolment of 1958-59. These projections indicate a problem that must be met: it cannot be wished away.
Finally, may I quote further from this thoughtful brief which is many pages long. I have only touched on its highlights this evening. At page 44 we find these words:
In conclusion we wish to emphasize that the probable enrolment is already in sight and has been measured. If adequate financial support is not forthcoming the universities, having made what economies are appropriate and possible, have two options: turn away students who wish to attend or allow quality to deteriorate. We believe the former to be unacceptable to the public and the latter disastrous for the public good.
There, Mr. Speaker, are a few views on the matter, although they do not cover the entire period covered by
March 16, 1972

the agreements entered into under Bill C-8 which we are now considering.
The other matter I wish to touch on I raised during the second reading debate on this measure. I gave the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) notice at the first committee meeting on Bill C-8 that I would be dealing with this matter when the bill came before the House for third reading. Since the Minister of Finance might still be involved in this bill in his former capacity of minister of justice, I am surprised not to see him here. At any rate, I gave him notice of my intention and I therefore hope some member of the ministry will have the courtesy to give me a response on the point I am about to raise. This is what I said, Mr. Speaker, when the matter arose in committee, as recorded at page 9 of issue No. 1 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
The point that I made in the House was that as far as I could determine there was really no legality or legislation that I could find that gave any right to the federal authority to collect such taxes-
I was referring to succession duties.
-in those six provinces which are proposing to enter into the succession duty field. I wondered if the Minister, who had been Minister of Justice before, had advised the Minister of Finance then as to whether or not this course could be followed.
I might say, to refresh the memories of hon. members, that this point concerns clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-8 which empower the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces for the collection of succession duties. The Minister of Finance replied to me in committee as follows:
I cannot describe to the honourable Member, Mr. Chairman, what advice I gave to the former Minister of Finance when I was the former Minister of Justice, but I can say that the statutory framework for these collection agreements is found in the bill itself. In other words, it provides an umbrella situation for agreements for the collection of taxes to be made under the general statutory authority of the bill.
I then asked:
Am I right then in assuming from the minister's answer that the situation will become regularized by the passage of this measure and that no other authority exists other than that found in clauses 9 and 10.
The minister answered, "Yes, sir." That, Mr. Speaker, confirms the point I made originally in this debate, that we are now being asked by the government to legalize more or less an ad hoc arrangement which the government has entered into with the provinces. I submit that no legislative authority exists for such an arrangement and that it is in breach of our constitutional practice and parliamentary practice as they have been followed from the dawn of our parliamentary system. I shall deal with that matter in the remaining portion of my speech before founding my motion on that theme.
The government has given instruction to the banks to restrict the amount of assets which are to be released from an estate and it seems to act as though it has the power to collect succession duties. On March 3, 1972, I quoted part of a letter sent by Mr. J. C. Ruddy, director of the estate and gift tax division of the Department of National Revenue. Actually, the references to the letter begin at page 507 of Hansard and continue for several
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act pages. I said that the government cannot claim that it has the power to give these instructions to banks under the Estate Tax Act for that act was repealed when Bill C-259 of the previous session became law. The government cannot claim it has such power under the authority of provincial legislation which is to be adopted.
Of course, we could negate Bill C-8 entirely. That is to say, we could throw it out and that would clearly be the end of any such claim on the government's part. I submit that clause 9 of Bill C-8, dealing with fiscal payments to provinces and related matters, provides that the government of Canada will be entitled to collect estate tax duties after an agreement is concluded with the provinces and after the appropriate provincial legislation is adopted. So far as I know, this is not happening with any one of the six provinces; therefore, I submit that the federal government is acting on agreements and legislation which are not in existence.
The authority for the federal government to prohibit the opening up or removal of any property in a depository or the delivering up of any property held in safekeeping for a deceased person was previously found in the Estate Tax Act. That act required the consent of the minister before such property could be released. As I say, Bill C-259 of the previous session effectively repealed the Estate Tax Act with respect to the death of any person who died after the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1971. Therefore, in respect of the property of these persons the federal government no longer has such authority.
I submit that until a province or the federal government enacts similar legislation there is no authority to require a bank to receive consent before releasing the property it holds on behalf of an estate. Clearly, if some crusty executor or lawyer of the old school got mad with the estate tax division of the Department of National Revenue and wished to raise cain about this matter in the courts of the land, he could. I suggest the courts would have no sympathy for the Department of National Revenue for entering into arrangements that in effect freeze estates in six provinces and say that only on the say-so of the federal district director of estate taxation shall assets be released.
That arrangement has been entered into without a jot or tittle of legislative authority. If some crusty Canadian wanted to test these rights in court now, he would make the Department of National Revenue look pretty sick in any court of the land. I do not know if such a crusty Canadian exists. However, if you read cases in the English law reports you will find that there was such a crusty Englishman. Some of those fellows fight until hell freezes over-


An hon. Member:: Be careful now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -because they will fight over a point of principle. The case I have in mind is Bowles v. Bank of England, reported in 1913 Chancery Law Reports, page 57. The case was actually heard in 1912. What I found interesting was the length of the report. It begins at page 57 and ends at page 91 and many pages are devoted to the decision of one member of the court. I am not referring to the court of appeal. I found it fascinating because the report of the argument alone covers 25 pages and the report of the decision only eight. It is fascinating because

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
counsel involved were among the most eminent of men who ever clapped wig on head and strode into English courtrooms to argue points of law.
It is also fascinating because one lone Englishman asserted principles for all of us against all the might of government and all the best legal brains the Bank of England and the government of that day could produce. From reading the case it sounds as though that lone Englishman, Mr. Bowles, had some legal training but maybe he found it all in the museum or went somewhere to get his law. Anyway, he stood off all the legal forces arrayed against him.
I will now proceed to what the case was all about. I am going to spend a little time on it. It was so well decided that the Parliament of England settled the question by passing a provisional act, the Provisional Collection of Tax Act. This is something we do not have in Canada. It enables the English government to do with estates what the Canadian government is now attempting to do. It was to cure the decision of the Bowles case. They could get away with it in England and in legal standing; we in Canada cannot because we do not have that corrective action.
I will be as brief as I can but I want to make the record complete, if only to tell my grandchildren that I stood in the line of those who thought it was all right that Charles I was separated from his head. I hope I can get others in parliament to share my interest and concern in this matter. After the next election perhaps it will be found that a great number of the public share that particular concern. I quote:
On April 2, 1912, the Committee of the House of Commons for Ways and Means passed a resolution approving of the imposition, for the financial year commencing April 6, 1912, of income tax at the rate of Is. 2d. in the pound, and this resolution was reported to and adopted by the House of Commons on June 24, 1912.
The dividends on the stock were payable on January 1 and July 1, and on June 26 the plaintiff issued the writ of summons in the present action against the defendants, the Governor and Company of the Bank of England-
Part of his claim was:
An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents, from deducting, by way of income tax or otherwise, any sum whatsoever from the dividend . . . payable to the plaintiff on July 1, 1912, in respect of . .. Irish Land Stock, of which he is the registered owner-
He also asked for-
-a declaration that the defendants, their servants or agents, are not entitled to deduct, by way of income tax or otherwise, any sum whatsoever from the dividend-
All this was done in the face of a resolution that had been passed by a committee of the House of Commons. On June 28, 1912, the plaintiff added another arrow to his bow, or quiver. He asked for-
-"a declaration that the defendants, their servants or agents are not entitled to deduct, by way of income tax, any sum whatsoever from any dividend or interest payable by them upon the public funds or the said public stock before such tax is actually imposed by Act of Parliament"-
This is very germane to the point I am now making. All this is to be found at pages 58 and 59 of the report in the

Chancery Division. On July 1 the Bank of England paid Mr. Bowles his dividend less a certain amount of money. That certain amount of money for income tax was paid into court. The matter then got into the law courts where, as I said, the plaintiff, Mr. Bowles, argued his case in person. The Bank of England had Romer, who was a distinguished King's Counsel of the day, and S. A. T. Rowlatt who later became a judge of the high court. There is a great quotation from the Magna Carta right down to the laws that existed in 1912. At one point Romer, the distinguished counsel for the bank, said rather plaintively:
The Bank is placed in the awkward position of being sued by Mr. Bowles if it deducts the tax, and of being sued by the Inland Revenue if it does not.
That was a perfectly true statement of the bank's position. That is found at page 63 of the report. After considerable argument the case was adjourned. When it resumed the plaintiff was back, again without a lawyer. He continued to argue his case. Mr. Romer was there for the Bank of England. Howard Wright, another distinguished commercial lawyer at the time, was there for the Bank of England having replaced Rowlatt who had been appointed to the high court.
The government got into the act at that point. It had Sir Rufus Isaacs, the attorney general, and Sir John Simon, the solicitor general. I think any lawyer in this House will recognize that these were two of the five or six very distinguished lawyers at the English bar in this century. The Crown did not exactly wander in without the best counsel it could obtain in this matter. I quote further from the argument in the case:
The Treasury, when brought to book by the Comptroller of the Issues of the Exchequer, excused itself by alleging a resolution of the House of Commons; but on the question being laid before the law officers of the Crown, then Sir Robert Finlay and Sir Edward Carson, they decided that the Treasury was wrong and its action unlawful; and Mr. Blain, representing the Treasury, on being asked by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, "I suppose you will agree that there was an infraction of the statute?" replied, "After the law officers' opinion we certainly must agree as to that. Of course the Treasury would feel all the more bounded in any future case that nothing of the sort should happen, so far as they could prevent it":
With two more quotations the foundation of my case will be laid on this particular matter. It was stated by the plaintiff in the argument in his brief, and these briefs are very extensively quoted:
The principle that the subject cannot be taxed without consent, or otherwise than by law, is as old as history. It was affirmed by the laws of King Alfred. It was adopted and confirmed even by the laws of William the Conqueror. All the earlier great jurists have asserted it, from Bracton in the Thirteenth century to Sir John Fortescue in the fifteenth century, who in his De Laudibus Legum Angliae says (see translation by Robert Mulcaster, ed. 1567, c. 9, pp. 25, 26)-
I hope Hansard will take the spelling found at page 72 of the Chancery Division report; it is quaint.
"The Kynge of England cannot alter nor change the lawes of his royalme at his pleasure"; he can neither change lawes without the consent of his subjects, nor yet charge them with straunge impositions against their wylles." So, too, say the later authorities, from Selden to Hallam, and also the statutes.
March 16, 1972

It concluded with Mr. Bowles.
I challenge the Attorney-General to present any authority suggesting that the power of taxation is to be found in anything whatever save and except an Act of Parliament.
Sir Rufus Isaacs and Austen-Cartmell, who had joined the case, and Sir John Simon and W. Finlay with them for the Crown, said in their opening statement:
The general propositions laid down by the plaintiff are beyond dispute;
He won the day and the small amount of money taken from him for the purpose of paying income tax which had not been imposed by act of parliament was ordered to be returned to him. You will also be pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that the judge ordered that the bank must pay the costs of the action. I imagine that the bill of costs when it was drawn up, with all those counsel running around, would amount to a very substantial sum. The monetary return to the plaintiff would be secondary to what happenned when that bill of costs was marched before the taxing master.
In any event, perhaps I can sum up the points I made on second reading, notice of which I gave to the Minister of Finance. I advised him then of the case from which I would be quoting. That is the case from which I have in fact quoted. I say that the federal authority, the Department of National Revenue, without a tittle of right under our constitution or parliamentary practice, issued directives to the banking system of Canada that in six provinces in which people had died since January 1, estates could only be dealt with at the will of federal bureaucrats, that is, people in the former estates tax division of the Department of National Revenue.
I say there is not an ounce of authority for that directive and there will be none until this bill is passed-and there is nothing in it which would seem to make it retroactive- or until provincial legislation is passed. Accordingly, because I feel strongly about this and because the practices of the House have been abused, I now move, seconded by my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That Bill C-8 be not now read a third time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the action of the government in arranging by departmental directive for machinery to collect taxes for several provinces of which Parliament had not yet approved is contrary to established practice and without constitutional authority.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there may be a procedural point involved here. I will be prepared to argue on at least one aspect of the procedural question should Your Honour wish to hear argument tonight. It is possible that you may wish to reserve your ruling until another occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I should tell the hon. member at this point, before I put his amendment, that I have reservations with regard to it, mainly because it appears to go beyond the purview of the bill which is before us. I refer the hon. member to citation 418 of Beauchesne which reads:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the committee of the whole. A11 amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a biH may be moved on the
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act
third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
Maybe it is an appropriate moment at which to invite the hon. member's comments. The main point I wish to raise is that the amendment does not seem to meet all the requirements, particularly the one which says that an amendment should be relevant to the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I appreciate the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. I have read the citation in Beauchesne which was applicable when a situation of this kind was discussed in the House on March 24, 1948, the citation then being 710; perhaps it has been changed in the latest edition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would have been the third edition.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It would have been the third edition, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me. The argument I should like to put forward is twofold. First, similar amendments were presented in this House as recently as December last on the occasion of Bill C-259. On that occasion, I suggest the amendment put forward was parallel to the one I am seeking to propose today, which is simply an attempt to indict a practice which has associated itself with the measure before us. Your Honour may wish to withhold a decision on this rather important point until you have had an opportunity to read the relevant extracts in connection with the third reading of Bill C-259.
The other argument I should like to present to Your Honour is this: the principle which could be cited against an amendment of the type I am proposing arises out of a practice which grew up when legislation was dealt with somewhat differently in the House: it went through second reading, which was regarded as the decision of the House on the question of principle, was sent to committee of the whole and finally given third reading. Now, however, the rules provide for a somewhat different procedure. We are often told that the purpose of second reading is to get a bill into committee where its merits can be studied. Then comes the report stage, followed by third reading. The type of third reading we have now, and which many argue is really the decision by the House on questions of principle, is different from the old practice set forth by Beauchesne and other learned authors of the past.
Considering those two points, and inviting Your Honour to look at the rulings which were given by the Chair in the final hours of the passage of Bill C-259, the income tax omnibus bill, perhaps Your Honour would agree with me that my motion is in order, as I so submit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member understands that he cannot ask the Chair to rule on the intention of an amendment. The Chair can rule only on the procedural acceptability of an amendment as such.
To my mind, the terms of the present amendment appear to criticize the actions of the government. Hon. members know that according to the rules of the House

March 16, 1972
Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act an amendment must relate to the content of the bill. It can either refute the bill or must relate to something that is found in the provisions of the bill. I have already referred to the citation in Beauchesne that clearly provides that all amendments that may be moved on second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading, with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill. If the hon. member would also refer to the top of page 572 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition, he will see quite plainly provided:
As the debate on the third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill, reasoned amendments which raise matters not included in the provisions of the bill are not permissible.
In view of these two citations, it is clear that the hon. member cannot ask the Chair to postpone its decision as to the acceptability of this amendment on the sole ground that it might be, in the mind of the hon. member, a very important question. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the five minutes remaining before ten o'clock to rebut very emphatically the suggestions of impropriety imputed by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
It is somewhat astonishing to hear it suggested that the federal government does not have a right to offer the provincial governments its collection facilities through the Department of National Revenue in the case of succession duties or estate taxes that the provincial governments might choose to levy. The whole point of the argument made by the hon. member was not really whether the federal government has this right, as indeed it must have, but rather whether some of the provinces have not exercised proper budgetary procedures in choosing to impose their particular taxes as of and from the beginning of the current year. That is not a subject upon which this body should be asked to adjudicate or to pass judgment.
We have before us in part III of the bill a whole system of arrangements whereby the federal government collects taxes for provinces, I am sure all Canadians would agree at very great savings and to the practical advantage of all. The federal government itself determined when it brought down the budget in June, 1971, that it should discontinue collection of death duties with the inception of a capital gains tax in Canada.
However, this was a tax field that was properly open to the provinces. It was evident that, with the exception of the three provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia which had theretofore been collecting succession duties, the machinery would not exist at the provincial level to enable the provinces to move into this field should they wish to do so. Therefore, the federal government suggested to the provinces that if four provinces other than the three I have mentioned wished to move into this tax field, the federal government would for a limited period of time make its collection facilities available to those provinces through the Department of National Revenue. That is all that has happened.
The question whether these taxes are properly or improperly imposed is one that will have to be answered
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
by the provinces that imposed them. The federal involvement in this field is purely as a collecting agent. I think it would be most unfortunate, unfair and regrettable if the imputation were left on the record, at this particular hour of the night when the debate is closing, that the federal government has done anything other than fulfil its obligations to the provinces in making available its services should the provinces choose to use them.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some remarks on third reading of the bill, but since I see the clock moving very close to ten o'clock I would ask that we call it that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there would be unanimous agreement to calling the next question, in view of the fact that the minister is not here and that he indicated to me a few minutes ago in the committee that he would be here. I can then go on in a few minutes.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The minister is not here but I was asked to answer in his place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows I would have to ask for unanimous consent of the House. From what the parliamentary secretary has said, there does not seem to be that unanimity, so I think we should proceed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was not the same point of order. I was speaking to the minister 20 minutes ago in the committee and he indicated to me that he wished to be here and asked that we hold the question until the second order of business. He will be here shortly. On that basis I do not think there will be any objection.


Albert Béchard: I agree, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I will be able to leave right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we change the order and put this question as No. 2 on the list?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 16, 1972



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-DISPUTE WITH NABET-REQUEST THAT CBC ENGAGE IN MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the course of action that has been taken and am very pleased that the minister who is going to reply to my question is in the House. I hope that the interventions that occurred earlier will not subtract from the time that I have available to present my case. It deals with the NABET-CBC dispute. I fully realize that there is little political mileage to be gained by anyone, especially one who speaks on behalf of the complainants in a labour dispute these days. That is simply an acknowledgement on my part of the particular climate of Canadian public opinion as it applies to strikes.
I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is convinced that his predecessor, Mr. Pearson, made a gross error in ever permitting strikes in the civil service at all, and the present government strategy, whether we are talking about the air traffic controllers, the airport technicians or the CBC technicians, is one of foot-dragging for the specific purpose of encouraging the build-up of a negative opinion with respect to strikes, to the extent that frustrated Canadians will rise up as a man and demand a system of compulsory arbitration in labour disputes in the public service. I am very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) looked up at that point, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased if I reached him. It does not seem to matter whether the particular component of the public service affected by a dispute is essential or not in the public interest.
The NABET strike-lock-out routine with the CBC has gone on since January 22. These men and women, employees of the CBC, were pushed into the position they now occupy because ever since May, 1971, the CBC has refused to budge from its initial working conditions and wage offer. Someone has said, and his name escapes me even though I consulted the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on the source, that justice delayed is justice denied.
It is always easy to blame labour for the interruption of a popular broadcast such as NHL hockey, particularly if one does not take the time or trouble to identify where the blame really lies. Our affable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has a line that he often uses in this House, based on a popular song. He often says that it takes two to tango. But, Mr. Speaker, it also takes two sides to negotiate. When one side solidifies, then productive negotiations cease. I believe that has happened for the past ten months with the CBC and NABET, but recent calls by NABET for a summit meeting with the President of the CBC have produced some result. Apparently there is to be such a meeting tomorrow. I am extremely happy with this but I would like to know the basis for the inflexibility shown in this dispute. Why has it gone on so long before this summit meeting takes place?
Sometimes I wonder if it is the death wish of the CBC. I also wonder, and I hope I will be excused for my suspicion, if there is some kind of link between the Liberal government and the treasury board that seems to motivate or occasion deliberate and identical tactics which the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
treasury board introduces no matter what the particular bargaining component concerned happens to be.
All of us have observed, and I regret this personal inference, that Mr. Davidson, the president of the CBC has rather large ears. There is a strong, positive correlation between large ears and acoustical sensitivity. I point out that Mr. Davidson is a career civil servant and he does not like noise. I believe that the reason he is president of the CBC today is to keep things quiet. After people such as his predecessors met with trouble and controversy with programs such as "This Hour has Seven Days'' the government was on the lookout for someone to clamp the lid down for at least a few years. I think the president of the CBC has done this with considerable success.
But what I am concerned about is the outright neglect and waste not only of the taxpayer's interest but also of his money. It has been estimated that the NABET strike has cost Canadian taxpayers between $5 million and $10 million to date from the time it started. I do not know; it depends on how one looks at it. I do not have with me the accounts of the President of the Treasury Board and I do not have his ability to figure. But I believe it would be much more simple and far less costly in terms of morale and finance if there had been a settlement a long time ago, because the ultimate figure probably will not be much more than $6 million, $8 million or $9 million. I do not think that was the strategy. I think public opinion was built up behind a particular strategy so that the government could cail for a board of arbitration in respect of this dispute. I believe there would be a good deal of support for this. I am sorry to say so, but I believe this is the situation.
So the government's strategy is working. I regret it, but I think that is the case. The CBC is supposed to be an independent Crown corporation. I do not believe it is independent of government influence. I do not understand how anyone could listen, for instance, to Ron Col-lister interviewing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and still believe the CBC is an independent Crown corporation.
I think the sinister implication of a prolonged strike, however disparate the position taken by the French director Raymond David, will ultimately occasion the death of the CBC as we have come to know it and to depend on it in its role as a public broadcaster in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The time of the hon. member has expired.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the form of the hon. member's question somewhat surprises me. First of all, I don't see any connection with the principle of the CBC employees' right to strike, which has never been questioned. I believe there must be some confusion in the mind of the hon. member when he glibly speaks of the "lock-out" which the CBC is alleged to be perpetrating since January, without the slighest reference to the rotating strike which the union is not making any secret about, I believe, and which has been carried out quite openly.
I also fail to understand how he can, in the same breath, mention the interference of the Treasury Board in a

March 16, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Crown corporation while calling for respect of the CBC's independence in its negotiations, and at the same time say we are guilty of non-interference in this labour conflict because the government did not intervene in the internal affairs of the CBC, leaving settlement of the dispute to the management of the corporation.
At any rate, I feel that the hon. member's most important point is what I wanted to tell the House tonight, that upon the invitation of the president of the CBC a summit meeting has now been arranged between the union leaders on the one hand and the management of the CBC on the other hand, together with two executives of the union and of the corporation.
I should just like to abstain from comment and hope that this renewal of direct negotiations-which I had hinted at in my reply to a question in the House yesterday or the day before-will lead to settlement of the dispute.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to answer the hon. member who enquired about the financial losses caused by the strike, that is the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The CBC is in the process of studying the financial results of the strike, to establish what gains and losses were incurred. I believe the figures the hon. member quoted are far removed from the facts but, still, we will have to wait for the CBC's figure to solve the matter.



AGRICULTURE-POTATOES-RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE DEPRESSED MARKET-POSSIBLE DIVERSION TO STOCK FEED

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to deal with what is becoming almost not a day by day but an hour by hour issue between the people of Prince Edward Island and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I think that somewhat innocently enough negotiations began last fall with respect to the disposition of the agriculture stabilization board to assist in dealing with the orderly marketing of potatoes and hopefully the establishment or the improvement of the general level of income received by farmers for their produce in potatoes. On March 4 a telegram was sent to the Minister of Agriculture, a copy of which was sent to me and others, which reads as follows:
The potato committee of N.B. and P.E.I. held a joint meeting on Mai'ch 4. The two committees unanimously agreed to urge that all potatoes committed to the price stabilization board be deleted from federal potato storage holdings report of March 1. We also urge that immediate disposition of committed product be undertaken and that the means of diversion used in any area be the most suitable for the producers of that area. We urge your fullest co-operation.
Ira Lewis, Chairman, P.E.I. Potato Co-ordinating Committee.
Fred McCain, Chairman, N.B. Potato Industry Committee.
Following that, I tried on one or two occasions to raise this matter with the Minister of Agriculture, who was not available. Initially I raised it with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who last Monday was reporting for the Department of Agriculture. He indicated that the board was not prepared to take a decision. This

produced a second telegram from the chairman of the P.E.I. committee which reads as follows:
P.E.I. Potato Co-ordinating Committee is dismayed at recent stabilization board statement that they are not prepared to sell back committed potatoes for livestock feed purposes. In view of wholehearted support for this use by all segments including Potato Dealers Association and Minister of Agriculture as expressed to board from meeting February 4 and the fact that detailed procedures for disposal as feed were suggested to the stabilization board by this committee as early as February 8 in Ottawa this decision is acutely disappointing. Our committee emphasizes that every day's delay is costing island farmers money.
Further delay to assess already known stocks for a market that is artificially high due to reefer car shortage is both futile and costly. In view of extremely adverse producer reaction to this latest of a long series of delays and the mistrust it is creating we urge in the strongest possible terms implementation of the livestock feeding program immediately according to procedures outlined at February 8 meeting.
Ira Lewis, chairman.
Then this morning there was a further telegram, this time from the president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, which reads:
Hereby advising that island potato growers waiting only 24 hours more for decision re diversion program potatoes. If no decision by tomorrow noon permitting livestock feed program proceed immediately we calling mass meeting of all growers involved in Charlottetown and hereby request your deputy Mr. Williams attend this meeting to explain position and delays of stabilization board.
Wallace Wood, president, P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture.
Finally, this afternoon, in the provincial legislature of Prince Edward Island the following resolution was passed. I will not read the whole of the resolution because the "whereases" really reiterate the arguments which were previously put forward. The body of the resolution reads as follows:
Be it therefore resolved that this Legislature do unanimously approve the resolution supporting the federation of agriculture and other farm groups in their request for an immediate reply for the disposition of the potatoes purchased by the stabilization board.
It is absolutely incredible that the Minister of Agriculture and the stabilization board should at this time, so many days and weeks after the representations received from all levels of the potato industry in P.E.I. plus the provincial government, be unable to explain or inform the agricultural industry of Prince Edward Island their reasons for the delay in dealing directly with this problem. Indeed, as I look at the question I find it not only disturbing but downright confusing.
There are some obvious benefits to be derived from the immediate disposal of the stocks that are presently held. These benefits can be seen firstly and perhaps most obviously in terms of the general level of agricultural need at present in P.E.I. There is a very obvious need at this date in the winter season for extra feed to carry over the various stocks that are being handled in the agricultural segment this year. Secondly, there is the remaining 75 cents per hundredweight that would go into farmers' pockets that should not be overlooked at this point. Thirdly, because of the shortage of reefer cars and the few potatoes moving generally, some very important employment could be provided in the grading of potatoes. Fourthly, the extra grading space available is not inconse-
March 16, 1972

quential. Fifthly, and this is the strongest argument which the minister himself advanced in the miscellaneous estimates committee yesterday, the disposing of these potatoes would likely raise the market price.
Perhaps in a way the minister tipped his hand yesterday when he dealt with the question. He said he would not want to do that because that was not the purpose of the program at all; it was not to deal with price raises but to ensure the farmers of some kind of minimal return. If that is the only interest that the minister and the stabilization board have, surely that is not sufficient for the needs of the potato growers of Prince Edward Island. The minister continues to talk vaguely about export markets. What export markets? When? I know as sure as I stand here that two or three weeks from now when the minister makes a decision it will be the same as it could be today, and that is to divert these 600 or 700 carloads of potatoes for badly needed stock feeding.
I cannot understand, nor can anyone in Prince Edward Island, why in the first instance the minister does not reply and meet with the individuals directly involved and, secondly, explore the matter in the most direct way possible.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very serious inaccuracies in what the hon. member has said, and in the three minutes allotted to me I want to point them out as clearly as I can. In the first place, the purchase program was, if you like, indeed a cash advance of 75 cents per hundredweight with a further 75 cents available to the producer when he was called upon to deliver the potatoes. The fact is that today those potatoes are selling anywhere from 30 cents to 50 cents per hundredweight over the $1.50 we guaranteed.
If we call them forward from the producers and call them at $1.50, where is the justice in that to the individual farmer when there is a rapidly escalating market at the moment where he may want to sell them? He could then refund the cash advance we have made and take advantage of the price higher than $1.50 per hundredweight. The hon. member seems to completely ignore the case of farmers who have taken this cash advance and who may have an opportunity, which is manifest right today, of probably getting another 30 cents to 50 cents.
If we were to call for delivery of the potatoes today, which we have a right to do, and pay him the other 75 cents he would only get $1.50. When the market is escalating as it is and he wants to give back to us the interest free cash advance, then he can avail himself of the market which is higher. There is justice involved in that.
If we were to divert these potatoes to livestock feed, whose potatoes would we call? We would have to call them from individual farmers, and this is nonsense. Are we going to deny them the right to avail themselves of the higher price? I do not think that we are, or that we ought to. I think the hon. member should take this into account. He complains that there are no reefer cars. I checked today and I know there is a shortage, but at the same time there has been a reasonably good movement of potatoes compared with this time of the year in other years. So it is not fair to say that is the whole reason.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We introduced this program for the purpose of raising the price at least above $1.50 because each producer knew he could get that much from us. We tried to make it clear, in spite of their attempt to cloud the issue, that if the farmer could avail himself of a price in the market higher than $1.50, that opportunity would be open to him. I intend to see that the individual farmer has that opportunity.



CRIMINAL CODE-ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-REVIEW BY HOUSE DURING PRESENT SESSION

Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday March 14 last, I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
In view of the fact that on December 29, 1967 the House of Commons deemed advisable to amend section 202A(2) of the Criminal Code, dealing with capita! punishment in Canada, with a few exceptions, made the amendment to remain in force for a five-year period ending on December 29, 1972, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to have the House deal with the matter this year, during the present session?
The Prime Minister answered that he did not intend to broach this matter during the present session.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the question should be submitted to the House as soon as possible. A few months ago, I sent to the 18,000 family heads of my constituency a questionnaire in which I asked them to state their opinion on that controversial issue. I received 4,752 answers. Therefore, over 25 per 100 of the citizens of my constituency took pains to send me their answer in Ottawa. As you undoubtedly realize, that percentage is quite significant and shows that this problem concerns my constituents as does any other event in French Canada.
Of all respondents, 322 stated that they thought it better to leave the law unchanged and 4,250 asked that the legislation be amended and that the death penalty be restored. Hence, roughly speaking, 92.6 per cent of the people in my constituency want the restoration of capital punishment. Moreover, the results of a poll conducted by the Canadian Press among federal members of Parliament indicated that 77 per cent of the people's representatives wish to revert to the wording of the 1967 Act.
Mr. Speaker, so as to enlighten hon. members' memory, I should like to call their attention briefly on a few changes brought to the legislation since 1961. In 1961, murder was considered as capital in all instances and the permissible verdict was capital punishment in all cases if the judge so decided.
In September 1961, murders were differentiated in two very distinct categories. First, capital murder could entail capital punishment and was defined as premeditated murder or the murder of a police officer, a prison guard or any other law officer. In addition, murder committed during the perpetration of another criminal act entailed the possible application of the same verdict.
The second category was that of non-capital murder, which entailed a possible sentence of life imprisonment. All other murders were classified in this category.

March 16, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Lastly, on December 29, 1967, the legislation was changed for a five-year trial period, or until December 29, 1972. Under the amended legislation presently in force, capital punishment, as provided for capital murder, applies only to murderers of officers of the law. All other murders are subject to life imprisonment.
Thus, by amending Section 202A(2) of the Criminal Code in 1967, we did not abolish capital punishment, but we limited the meaning of the phrase "capital murder". Thus, nowadays, the man who kills a cashier during an armed robbery only gets a life sentence. If under the same circumstances he kills a policeman or a constable, he can be sentenced to death, if the judge or jury so decide.
In short, Mr. Speaker, when we ask that capital punishment be reinstated, we want to phrase "capital murder" to apply to cases other than the murder of a policeman.
I think I should point out to the House a few statistics which show conclusively that there has been a frightening rise in crime since 1967, especially in Quebec. In 1967, there were 52 murders in Quebec; in 1968, 91, and in 1969, 128.
Admittedly, the rate of population growth increased as well, but there was an extraordinary increase in the number of murders committed. For instance, the ratio of murders was 0.7 for 100,000 people in 1966. In 1969, for the same number of people, the ratio rose to 2.1. In Quebec, there has been almost a 55 per cent increase in the number of murders since 1967, whereas the average increase in Canada and the United States was 10 per cent.
Therefore, we face a major problem, and despite what the Prime Minister may think, it is urgent to find a solution. Personally, I do not like at all the differentiation made in the present act, and by which the life of a policeman is considered to be more valuable than that of other citizens.
It is true that some policemen do dangerous work but, among us, who will not at least once in his lifetime have the opportunity of helping justice by stopping a criminal or surprising a thief red-handed?
In any event, the law as it now reads is not logical. Since the amendment in 1967, three policemen have been killed in Canada. The three criminals were condemned, and this government has pardoned the three by sentencing them only to life imprisonment. I suggest that the criminal who kills a cashier is just as guilty as if he killed a policeman. I can see no difference whatever in the gravity of the crime.


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


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), I really had not intended to debate the whole question of capital punishment in this country. I think the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was, when it is intended that the legislation will be presented and when will this House debate it?
I assure the hon. member there will be legislation introduced in the House well in advance of December 31, 1972, which is the deadline, and in ample time to provide the fullest possible debate and decision prior to the expiry of the five-year trial period. I think that is the important point which the hon. member is trying to make, and the important commitment that the government makes.
The questionnaire of which he speaks which was sent to his riding cannot help but reflect the feelings of his constituents in Richmond. Perhaps the hon. member is guided by this. However, there are questionnaires and various polls, the Gallup poll and statistics on this subject from Statistics Canada. These are all interesting to interpret in whatever may we wish to interpret them.
We have to make certain we understand the reasons behind increases or decreases in certain types of crimes. The important thing is that we have the fullest possible debate and the longest possible experience prior to introducing new legislaton for full debate when the hon. member and other members of the House will have ample opportunity to express their views and their constituents views on this extremely sensitive matter.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, March 17, 1972