1962-04-04

Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minisler of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, authority has been provided for a continuation of assistance in the movement of Canadian coal. The previous orders in council providing this assistance expired on March 31 and have been succeeded by new orders passed on April 2.
The recent royal commission on coal, otherwise known as the Rand commission, recommended that steps be taken to assist Canadian coal, particularly in the maritimes, to find an increasing and stable market in the home area. Such a market should over a period replace the present dependence on a large scale, costly movement to Ontario. The commission made specific recommendations in respect to maritime coal which were designed to accomplish this purpose. However, the market situation has been altering rapidly and is presently in such a fluid condition that it is considered inadvisable to confine the measures of assistance by unduly restrictive provisions.
The assistance now provided is defined in the respective orders in council which are not restrictive in time. It is our intention to keep the situation under constant review and to make such changes, from time to time, in the orders in council as production and market developments may require. This flexibility will not only encourage the shift in market areas recommended by the royal commission; it will make such shift as easy as possible under the conditions as they may develop, with the lowest possible expenditure necessary to accomplish the main purpose. This purpose remains, as in the past, the maintenance of a reasonable level of employment in Canadian coal mines.
Specifically the new orders provide that the assistance to the mines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick be widened to include payment of a subvention on all coal shipped. Provision is also made to encourage an increasing movement by rail from the mines to large consumers in Quebec and Ontario rather than by the expensive movement by water and transshipment.
In western Canada provision is made to continue the assistance on the movement of coking coal from mines in Alberta and British Columbia for export. This provision will permit a continuation of the existing export to Japan.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the areas concerned will welcome the announcement made by the minister to the effect that the assistance to the movement of coal to certain markets, both domestic and export, will be continued. As the minister said, this is in accordance with some of the recommendations of the Rand commission. The minister also said the situation was under constant review as far as production and markets are concerned.
I feel there will be some disappointment in the Cape Breton area in that the minister has made no specific announcement in connection with the proposed closing of No. 16 colliery. Furthermore, we expected at this time that the minister would make some specific announcement with regard to a national policy on coal. Such a policy is lacking. This is only a temporary measure designed to take care of an interim situation, but gives no definite or permanent relief to the area and to the industry concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ADJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Creaghan, seconded by Mr. McFarlane, moved for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An act to amend the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act (to include provident fund pensioners) ",
Mr. Speaker:: When this motion was last called it was stood over to give hon. members who wished to do so an opportunity to consider whether they would make any representations about the character of this bill, and specifically whether it might be a money bill requiring a resolution preceding its introduction. If any hon. member feels disposed to comment on the matter I shall be glad to hear him. Otherwise I think I can only say that I have not altered the opinion which I expressed tentatively before.

Questions


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, it seems apparent from the discussion of last Thursday that Your Honour has formed the opinion that the bill I have attempted to introduce is, in your opinion, a money bill, and with the consent of the seconder I ask permission of the house to withdraw the bill. I propose later this day to introduce a resolution to the same effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may withdraw the bill as it has never been placed before the house. In any event I am sure the hon. member would be given unanimous consent if it were needed. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Herridge: 1.	Was Mr. John J. Wilderman employed as a timekeeper with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources at Fort Smith, N.W.T.?
2.	If so, is he still so employed: and, if not, why not?
Answer by: Mr. Dinsdale:
1.	Mr. John J. Wilderman worked as project labourer on winter works road clearing, Pine lake to Hay camp. Part of his duties included timekeeping and grocery orders.
2.	No. He was taken on strength January 8, 1962, and struck off strength February 15, 1962, because of a disagreement with the project foreman.


REFUSAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the number of applications for Canadian citizenship that were made and not granted since the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1946?
2.	What were the principal grounds for rejecting the applications?
3.	Are applicants who are not granted citizenship in due course informed of grounds for withholding such grants?
4.	Is membership in any lawful political, national, fraternal, or language group, a ground for not granting citizenship?
5.	Is attendance at meetings, concerts, or other functions of such lawful groups, a ground for refusal of citizenship?
6.	Is subscribing to a lawful political, labour, or language group newspaper or publication, a ground for refusal of citizenship?
7.	Is membership in, or any activity on behalf of, any lawful trade union a ground for refusal of citizenship?
8.	Are applications for citizenship refused in any case upon secret evidence?
9.	What departmental procedure is employed to examine and pass upon the evidence before a decision is reached refusing citizenship?

Answer by: Mrs. Fairclough:
1.	From the proclamation of the Canadian
Citizenship Act on January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1961,	582,299 applications for
citizenship were granted. During this period, on the basis of information available, 3,317 applications were refused. This figure includes some applications which have been refused on more than one occasion.
The foregoing totals may not be complete since it was not a requirement in the early years of the legislation that all courts file statistics relating to applications granted and refused.
2.	No statistical reports are kept on the different reasons for refusal. Among the reasons are a lack of Canadian domicile, lack of residence in Canada for one year continuously prior to application, an inadequate knowledge of English or French, and an inadequate knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
3.	Not in all cases. Section 10 of the act provides that the grant of a certificate of citizenship is at the discretion of the minister.
4 to 6. In determining whether or not an applicant has an adequate knowledge of the privileges and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, due consideration is given to membership in or participation in the activities of organizations concerning which there are grounds for believing that they promote or advocate the subversion, by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes as they are understood in Canada.


* MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES, ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	By March 1, 1962, how many mortgages had been foreclosed In Elliot Lake by (a) lenders, whose mortgages were guaranteed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and (b) by C.M.H.C. itself?
2.	How much of a financial charge were these actions against the Insurance fund?
3.	What is the occupancy condition and ownership condition on this date for the houses on which foreclosure proceedings have been taken or which have reverted in other ways back to C.M.H.C.?
4.	On this date, what was the record of empty homes at Elliot Lake?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, as this answer contains many figures I ask that it be printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs request that the reply be printed without being read because of its length?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	As of the 1st March, 1962 the number of properties acquired at Elliot Lake, Ontario, by the mortgage insurance fund were:
(a) from lenders whose mortgages
were	insured by C.M.H.C	
657(b) from	C.M.H.C. directly	
17Total	
674
These properties were acquired mainly by voluntary transfer.
2. Payments have been made out of the mortgage insurance fund totalling $4,363,604,
as of March 1, 1962.
3.
Sold to new purchasers and occupied 2
Rented	 295
Unoccupied	 377
Total	 674
4.	Answered by 3 above.


C.N.R. NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Since January 1,	1961, has the Canadian
National Railways been in negotiation or discussions with officers or owners of the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway regarding (a) running rights on this railroad (b) the purchase of this railroad (c) the lease of this railroad?
2.	As of March 25, 1962, what is the status of arrangements and/or negotiations between the C.N.R. and the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway, relating to construction and operation of the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts line?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The discussions which are continuing have no relation to the construction of the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts line.


*F. A. GAFFNEY, C.N.R. VICE PRESIDENT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long has F. A. Gaffney been vicepresident, highway services, of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	In summary, what are the qualifications, and what has been the experience of Mr. Gaffney for this post?
3.	Did Mr. Gaffney take part in the purchases by the C.N.R. of any of these trucking firms: East-West, Midland Superior, and Husband Trucking?


Mr. Martini:: Mr. Speaker, the information requested in this question is not within the knowledge of the minister. Staff appointments on the Canadian National Railways come strictly under the control of the management.
Questions
It has not been the practice of the management to disclose information from personal files of officers and employees and the sessional committee on railways, air lines, and shipping has in the past supported this position. The management advise that appointments of officials are made upon a judgment evaluation of the qualifications and experience of the individuals concerned.


*L. J. MILLS, C.N.R. SENIOR OFFICER
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 345
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	What are the educational qualifications of L. J. Mills of the Canadian National Railways senior staff?
2.	How long has he held his present post?
3.	Has he ever had business experience with truck lines or trucking, other than on the C.N.R.?
4.	Was he called before hearings of the Quebec transportation commission in 1961 to explain the C.N.R.'s purchase of truck lines?
5.	If not, did the president of the C.N.R. tell the Quebec transportation commission that Mr. Mills (as the comptroller) could explain the financing of the truck lines purchased or taken under option by the C.N.R.?
6.	If so, on what date did the president refer to Mr. Mills as the comptroller?


Quinto Antonio Martini: The answer to questions 1, 2 and 3 is the same as that given to question 344. The answer to questions 4, 5 and 6 is as follows: The management advise that the evidence before the Quebec transportation commission is transcribed and is available for examination.


* CANAL CONSTRUCTION, LAKE SIMCOE   EFFECT ON FISHERIES
Mr. Badanai: Has the Department of Fisheries given any consideration to the possible effect on the fisheries, through smelt and lamprey infestation, of building a canal into lake Simeoe; and, if so, what is the result of that consideration?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes; scientists of the Department of Fisheries were asked by the Department of Transport for their opinion on this matter.
There is already an open waterway from lake Ontario into lake Simeoe but there is no evidence of lamprey or smelt entering lake Simeoe through this waterway. This does not guarantee, however, that if another all water route was established from Georgian bay, lamprey and smelt would not succeed in reaching lake Simeoe. They would, however, still have the problem of establishing themselves. If lamprey did establish themselves they would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the lake trout. In the case of smelts, this species would compete with other fish in the lake, but it has been demonstrated that smelts can provide a profitable fishery as well as serving as food for the other species.

Questions


CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	How many civil actions were initiated under the Food and Drugs Act since January 1. 1961?
2.	Were there any convictions; and, if so, how many?
3.	What companies were involved, and what was the amount of the fines in each case?
Answer by: Mr. Cardiff:
1.	116.
2.	87. Of the 87 convictions fines were paid in 83 cases and jail sentences imposed in 4 cases. One case of the 116 initiated was dismissed. There are 28 cases in which charges have been laid but which have not as yet been completed.
3.	See attached table.
Actions Initiated Under the Food and Drugs
January 1, 1961-March 31, 1962
Amount of
Name	Fine

Chemo Drug Co. Ltd	 5.
G. W. Rutherford Ltd	 15.
E. J. Denouden (country meat
packers)	 25.
Don Shaw Pharmacy	 25.
Sohnel Meats (Wm. Zieger) ....	25.
Paul O. Gravel	 25.
Laiterie Beaudoin	 25.
Laiterie Lallier	 25.
Euclide Corriveau	 25.
Leo Paul Lauziere	 25.
E. L. Stickley & Co	 25.
Alfred Dube	 35.
St. Joseph Pharmacy
(Gillies Petit)	 50.
Albanel Societe Co-operative
Agricole	 50.
Consenza Cremerie	 50.
Guiseppi Saputo & Figli	 50.
Lenz & Co. Meat Products	 50.
Viking Meat Market & Lockers ..	50.
Northland Drugs Ltd	 50.
Quebec Smoked Meat	 50.
Joseph T. Gelinas	 50.
J. C. Lord	 50.
McClung-Clemens Ltd	 50.
Conger's Red and White Store... 50.
Emile Sansfacon	 50.
St. Felicien Societe Co-Op
Agricole	 50.
Junction Meat Market Ltd		50.
Sterling Meat Market	 50.
St. Felicien Co-Op Agricole_____	55.
Hygienic Charcuterie	 75.
Marche Central Eng. (E. Bourboin) 100. Syndicat Cooperatif d'Achats
et Ventes	 100.

Amount of
Name	Fine

Gregoire Pharmacy	 100.
Lakeland Dairies Ltd	 100.
St. Eustache Pharmacy	 100.
Labelle Pharmacy	 100.
Favre & Freres	 100.
Epiciers Unis Ltee	 100.
Howe's Meat Market	 100.
Stokes Drug Co. Ltd	 100.
Blady's Meat & Poultry Market ..	100.
Iberville Meat Market	 100.
U. McMahon & Fils	 100.
Melnick Food Products	 125.
Bayview Dairy (Wm. Wilkinson) 125. St. Marcel Societe Co-operative
Agricole	 125.
Beaudry Pharmacy (Dr. Raphael
Brandry)	 150.
South Shore Salaison	 150.
Alphonse Lafleur Ltee	 150.
Salaison LaSarre	 150.
Salaison St. Jerome	 150.
Noel & Patrice Boivin	 150.
Iberville Pharmacy	 150.
Nordic Drugs of Canada	 150.
St. Lin Pharmacy (R. Legrande) 200.
Murray Rexall Pharmacy	 200.
Laflamme Pharmacy	 200.
Samson Pharmacie	 200.
European Quality Meats	 200.
Melnick Food Products Inc		250.
Noe Bourassa Ltd	 300.
Eastern Sausage Co	 300.
Barclay's Drug Store	 300.
Viaduct Drugs	 300.
Bell-Craig Ltd	 300.
Ida Levasseur	 375.
Federal Packing Inc	 400.
Berke Drug Store	 400.
Salaison Salaberry	 400.
Picard & Fils	 450.
Sherboume Meat Market	 450.
Cosenza Cremerie	 450.
Saputo and Sons	 450.
Fugere Pharmacy	 500.
Hygienic Charcuterie	 500.
Massey Provisions	 500.
Crete and Davidson	 800.
Theodore M. Gevry	 840.
E. Clermont	 1,000.
Gaudreau & Frere	 1,000.
Boyer Pharmacy	 1,500.
Berke's Pharmacy	 1,800.
Rafael's Drug Store	 2,500.
Gerard Guy, Six months in prison.
M. E. Savickas, Jail term.
Eugene Servant, Two years in penitentiary. Ideal Sausage Co., Charges dismissed. Lawrence E. Fritz, 2 months and $1,000 fine or additional 6 months.

Questions
Charges Laid but Cases not Completed
New Noranda Dairy Alfred Tremblay
Syndicat Cooperatif Agricole St. Cceur de Marie
Societe Cooperative Agricole de Chicoutimi Federal Packing Inc.
Syndicat Coop, des produits laitiers de St. Croix Martin Veillette Pierre Dupont Bruno Lamy Mme. H. Lavergne Gerard Bellerive Lorenzo Fugere Henri Bournival Roland Veillette Pesner Bros.
R. H. Ames
Harry Crouch
Bannerman and McCarron
J. B. Kipp, R. J. Kipp, joint charge
Nick Peconi
George E. Gibson, Gordon S. Johnson, joint charge
Dr. O. Raymond Robert C. Hooten Robert A. Carey Charles Thomson Edward Peconi Ludger Brisson G. Menard R. Menard J. P. Menard. *


* BELLECHASSE ELECTORAL DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	On what date was Mr. G. Labrecque appointed returning officer for the electoral district of Belle-chasse?
2.	Who recommended his appointment? (Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: 1.	Mr. G. Labrecque was appointed returning officer for the electoral district of Bellechasse by P.C. 1958-189 dated February 5, 1958, and was reappointed as returning officer for the same electoral district by P.C. 1960-1206 dated August 31, 1960.
2.	In accordance with the terms of section 8 of the Canada Elections Act, returning officers are appointed by the governor in council. It has long been the custom that the recommendation to the governor in council is made by the Secretary of State. As to such suggestions as may be made to the Secretary of State of names for incorporation in his recommendation, these are made on a confidential basis and it has never been the practice of any government to reveal the source or identity of such suggestions as may be made.
(Text):


BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How many copies of the Canadian Bill of Rights have now been printed, and at what expense?
2.	How many copies have been (a) sold (b) distributed free; and what Is the legal authority for the free distribution?
Answer by: Mr. Dorion:
1.	20,000 copies at a cost of $6,000.
2.	(a) 14,500 copies, (b) 178 individual copies to members of parliament on request; 225 copies to the press, school commissions, boards of trade, etc., for publicity purposes.
Authority for distribution to members of parliament is TB minute 477983. Distribution for publicity purposes is chargeable to the vote for that purpose of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.


TENDERS FOR WARNING SIGNALS, HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were tenders called during 1961 for the Installation of 22, more or less, warning signals in the Halifax-Dartmouth, N.S., area; and, if so, on what date?
2.	What was the medium, or media, used in advertising the tender call; and what are the names, with addresses, and amounts, of parties submitting tenders?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?
Answer by: Mr. O'Hurley:
1.	Yes, on September 29, 1961, tenders were invited for the installation of twenty-two (22) attack warning sirens in the Halifax perimeter area in accordance with specifications and drawings provided by the Department of National Defence.
2.	The Halifax district office of the Department of Defence Production mailed invitations to tender to thirteen (13) regional firms considered capable of handling the contract. Two tenders were received as follows:-
Arthur & Conn Limited,
P.O. Box 34, Halifax, N.S	$18,398
Canadian Comstock Co. Ltd.,
12 Queen st., Dartmouth, N.S. . $19,413
3.	On October 13, 1961, the contract in the amount of $18,398 was awarded to the lower tenderer, Arthur & Conn Limited. On March 1, 1962, this contract was amended to provide for the following additional work at the prices indicated:-
(a)	Supply and installation of metering facilities for twenty-two (22) sirens, $1,226.72 lot.
(b)	Supply and installation of 1" x 1J" x 72" slats spaced approx. 1J" apart around poles #35, 36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 52, $225.00 lot.

Questions


LOT 19, JUNCTION GORE, GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP
Mr. Mcllraiih: Was an independent valuation obtained by crown assets disposal corporation of the 3.10 acres of land in lot 19, Junction gore, Gloucester township, which was sold to Principal Investments Limited, as appears in sessional paper 194, tabled February 14, 1962; and, if so, what firm or firms made the independent valuation, and what is the amount of such valuation and the date of its receipt by the department?
Answer by: Mr. O'Hurley:
1. No. Principal Investments Limited first offered to pay $10,000 per acre but after
negotiations agreed to pay $15,000 per acre which, bearing in mind the limitations of the site, namely its triangular shape and the special conditions of the sale was considered in line with the current value of land in that area, as confined by consultation with officers of the national capital commission.


LIVESTOCK EXPORTS, 1960-61
Mr. Rogers: What was the quantity and value of livestock exported during the fiscal year 1960-61?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
Quantity and value of livestock exported during the fiscal year 1960-61:
Class	Class	Unit	No. in	No. in	of	1960	1961	Description	Qty.	Quantity	Value(2010)	(1-19)	Cattle, purebred 	No.	22,738	$ 7,833,505(2040)	(1-49)	Dairy cattle n.e.s., weighing 200 lbs.	and over	No.	16,507	4,041,598(2045)	(1-70)	Cattle n.e.s., weighing less than 200	lbs	No.	31,118	764,434(2050)	(1-80)	Cattle n.e.s., weighing 200 lbs. to 700 lbs. . .	No.	116,237	10,828,920(2055)	(1-90)	Cattle n.e.s, weighing over 700 lbs	No.	55,113	10,676,424(2020)	(2-19)	Sheep, purebred 	No.	1,052	56,718(2075)	(2-49)	Sheep n.e.s	No.	1,999	34,622(2025)	(3-19)	Swine, purebred 	No.	5,073	361,033(2080)	(3-49)	Swine n.e.s	No.	4,839	169,868(2057)	(4-25)	Horses for slaughter 	No.	6,927	557,624(2060)	(4-49)	Horses n.e.s	No.	1,961	383,963Total 	263,564	$35,708,709* VANCOUVER PROTESTS RESPECTING RENT IN-	* ABOLITION OF TOLLS, JACQUES CARTIER ANDCREASES FOR ELDER CITIZENS	^	VICTORIA BRIDGES
Question No. 366-Mr. Herridge:	
Question No. 371-Mr. Fisher:
Has the Prime Minister received a letter dated March 23 from Mr. J. W. Chesterman, secretary of the federated legislative council, elder citizens association of Vancouver, B.C., protesting the increases in rents of the C.M.H.C.-administered housing projects in Vancouver, B.C.; and, if so, what answer has been made?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The letter was received and acknowledged. As stated therein, I brought the matter to the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible to parliament for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. My information in connection with this matter is, as I am informed by the corporation, that it has not issued any instructions to the administrators of these projects to increase the rents. These two projects are administered by a local housing authority pursuant to an agreement entered into between the local housing authority and the federal-provincial partnership.

1.	Has the national harbours board made representations to the Minister of Transport within the past eighteen months asking the government to proceed with the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?
2.	If not, has the national harbours board made representations to the Minister of Transport within the past 18 months asking the government not to proceed with the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?
3.	Has the national harbours board given the government an estimate of the total cost to the taxpayer of the abandonment of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges; and, if so, what is the estimate?


Quinto Antonio Martini: The answers are as follows:
1, 2 and 3. Under the long established practice of the house, departmental or interdepartmental communications are considered as privileged and in accordance with that practice it would not be proper to deal with


*C.N.R. RIGHT OP WAY, VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL
Mr, Fisher: 1.	Has the national harbours board, the Department of Transport, the Montreal harbour commission, or the Department of Finance negotiated with the Canadian National Railways for the price at which the C.N.R. is willing to relinquish its running rights or railway right of way on the Victoria bridge in Montreal, in connection with the government's announced intention of abolishing tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges?
2.	If so, has any contribution to these negotiations or discussions been made by the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec?
3.	Has the C.N.R. indicated the basis upon which it determines the money it will require to relinquish its rights and income from Victoria bridge?
4.	If no negotiations have taken place by any agency with the C.N.R., how does the government intend to end the present integration of the Victoria bridge within the C.N.R. operating structure?


Quinto Antonio Martini: The answers are as follows:
1.	Preliminary negotiations with Canadian National Railways do not contemplate the railway relinquishing its running rights or railway right of way on the Victoria bridge.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not applicable.


FEASIBILITY SURVEY, N.B.-P.E.I. CAUSEWAY
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a survey been undertaken of the engineering feasibility of a causeway across Northumberland strait from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island: and, if so, has it been completed, and what are its findings?
2.	If the survey has not been completed, when is it expected to be completed?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
1.	Yes; it has not been completed.
2.	No definite date for completion can be given at this time. The duration of the survey is dependent on the outcome of investigations still underway.


NATIONAL RESEARCH MODEL STUDY, N.B.-P.E.I. CAUSEWAY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 376
Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	Has the national research council undertaken a model study of a proposed crossing of the Northumberland strait between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?
2.	If completed, what is the result of the model study; and if not, when will it be completed?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
1.	No model study has been made of a proposed crossing; two dimensional model studies of cross sections of a causeway have been carried out.
2.	It has indicated a satisfactory cross section based on calculated wave heights. These results will be rechecked on the model when
Questions
actual wave heights in the strait are determined. (Delay has been due to damage of equipment by ice as indicated in answer to question No. 377.)


WAVE MEASUREMENTS, NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT
Mr. McWilliam: Were wave measurements in Northumberland strait undertaken during any periods by the national research council; and, if so, what is the result of the measurements?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
Yes. However, the equipment was damaged by ice during the past winter and therefore no significant results were obtained. The equipment will be repaired and the measurements continued when the ice clears.


COLLEGE MILITAIRE ROYAL DE SAINT-JEAN   COMPLETION OF STUDIES
Mr. Dupuis: Has the government authorized Le College Mili-taire Royal de Saint-Jean to offer to cadets attending the said institution the opportunity of completing their studies without having to go to the Royal Military College at Kingston, Ontario; and, if so, when was such decision taken; and, if not, when will the government accede to the numerous requests made to that effect?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
Under the present system officer cadets at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean and Royal Roads attend the Royal Military College at Kingston for the last two years of college training. Le College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean was established in 1952. The first group of officer cadets from College Militaire Royal graduated into the services in 1957. One of the objectives of the college was to enable French speaking cadets to commence their training in their native language. In this it has been a notable success. The program is under continuous study to see whether improvements can be made.


INQUIRY INTO RICHELIEU RIVER WATERWAY
Mr. Dupuis: Has an international commission been charged by the government to inquire into the advisability of undertaking operations to provide a deep waterway through the Richelieu river; and, if so, at what date was this done, and which commission was chosen therefor?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
Mr. Speaker, on March 8 I indicated that it was hoped that the matter would be referred to the international joint commission in the near future by means of a joint reference from the governments of Canada and the United States. Discussions are proceeding with the United States authorities

Questions
regarding the terms of the reference. When the terms are settled and the reference is made, the house will be informed.


*PARTS OF MACHINES
Mr. Benidickson: In several tariff board appeals heard since April 1, 1959, involving the matter of whether the goods which were the subjects of the appeals were parts of machines or whether the goods were not parts of machines, in its decisions in these appeals, did the tariff board give a definition, test, or other determination which establishes the conditions under which goods are parts of machines and the conditions under which goods are not parts of machines; and, if so, what is the definition, test, or other determination given by the tariff board which establishes the conditions under which goods are, or are not, parts of machines?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, the following declarations made by the tariff board since April 1, 1959, appear to have some relevancy to this question:
Appeal Number	Date of Decision
518	June 16, 1959		
418	December	21,	1959524	November	1,	1960517	November	25,	1960548	August 2,	1961	549	September	8,	1961615	November	27,	1961560	December	18,	1961553	January 31, 1962	
If it is the wish of the house or the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River I shall be glad to table copies of these particular decisions, but I think he will agree that as these fall within the rule that any judicial decision must speak for itself he will not expect me to venture an interpretation of these decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister offered to table certain documents and I am not sure whether that is requested. Does the hon. member who asked the question wish the documents to be tabled?


Mr. Benidickson:: I think it would be convenient to have them in the records of the Clerk.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the tabling of the documents offered by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONSIDERATION OF TOLL ABOLITION, WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Fisher: When the Minister of Transport indicated in the house on Friday, March 23, that the government was giving serious consideration to abolishing tolls on the Welland canal, did this mean that the matter was before the Department of Transport or under consideration by the governor in council?

Answer by: Mr. Martini:
The position in regard to tolls on the Welland canal was clearly stated by the Minister of Transport at page 2122 of Hansard, of March 23 and no elaboration is considered to be appropriate or necessary. It was also stated in the house by the minister on March 29 that if and when a decision on this matter is taken by the government it will be announced in the usual manner.


WHEAT TRANSFERS FROM 1960-61 TO 1961-62 ACCOUNT
Mr. Argue: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were transferred from the 1960-61 wheat account to the 1961-62 account?
2.	What was the transfer price for statutory grades?
3.	Was this based on the current wheat board selling price?
4.	If not, then on what basis were the prices
established?
Answer by: Mr. Jorgenson:
1.	199,297,606.5 bushels.
2.	per bus.
No. 1	northern	
$1.8778536No. 2	northern	
1.8547249No. 3	northern	
1.8722924No. 4	northern	
1.7911390No. 4	special	
1.8378992No. 2	Garnet	
1.8533136No. 3	Garnet	
1.8390972No. 1	Alberta red winter . .	1.7992394No. 2	Alberta winter	
1.8731518No. 3	Alberta winter	
1.8486195No. 1	amber Durum	
2.3974172No. 2	amber Durum	
2.3789953No. 3	amber Durum	
2.3672897No. 4	amber Durum	
2.32967273.	Priced open sales contracts were transferred to the 1961-62 pool at contract prices. Remaining unsold stocks (including unpriced open sales contracts) were transferred to the 1961-62 pool at the board's quoted prices as at the close of business on February 28, 1962.4.	See answer to 3 above.


c.M.H.C.  REJECTED APPLICATIONS FOR LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECTS
Mr. Garland: 1.	How many applications for limited dividend projects have been rejected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation since January 1, 1962?
2.	How many individual units were involved in these rejected applications?


Howard Charles Green: The answers are as follows:
1.	Three.
2.	Two hundred and sixty-four units.


* JOSEPH DREAVER, MISTAWASIS INDIAN BAND
Mr. Howard: Is a Mr. Joseph Dreaver of the Mistawasis Indian band an employee of the federal government in any capacity; and. if so, when did he commence employment, at what salary, and what are his duties?


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker, Chief Dreaver is not a civil servant but his services have been retained on a contract basis at the rate of $25 per diem, including expenses, for a five day week since December 1, 1961. His duties require him to survey the Indians of Saskatchewan in respect of their reactions and recommendations concerning the findings of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration based on her answer to my earlier query with respect to Chief Joseph Dreaver. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that while he is doing the work for the department she indicated he is also organizing for the Conservative party?


Mr. Nowlan:: I hope so.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of that matter.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether I might ask another question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If it requires notice, perhaps she could take it as notice. Can the minister indicate whether there are any other Indians in Canada-and if so, what are their names and so on-who have been employed in the same sort of work Chief Dreaver is doing?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is one that might properly go on the order paper. There are a good number of Indians in Canada.


*SALE OF TIMBER, TSIMPSEAN INDIAN RESERVE NO. 2
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration received a resolution from the band council of the Port Simpson Indian band to the effect that the said band has agreed to accept the offer of the Beaufort Industries Ltd., tendered on February 13, 1962, for the purchase and removal of timber from the Tsimpsean Indian reserve no. 2; and, if so, what decision, if any, has been reached?
Order for Return


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, although no resolution in the formal sense has been received at headquarters, on March 14, 1962 I received a telegram from the council of the Port Simpson band indicating they were prepared to accept the offer of Beaufort Industries Ltd. This was later confirmed by letter dated March 24, 1962, signed by Chief Sampson.
As I announced in the house on Tuesday, March 13, the sale of February 13, 1962 has been cancelled and new tenders will be called. The new sale will be proceeded with only after agreement with the Port Simpson band council as to the terms and conditions to be included in the licence.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS
Mr. Robichaud: What was the total number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits, as of February 28, 1962?


Mr. Thrasher:: The answer to this question is that information regarding the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance as of February 28, 1962 is not yet available.

On the orders of the day:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. member advise the house when the figures for the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of February 28, 1962 may be made available?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, I understand it takes approximately two months for those figures to be compiled.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the total number of claimants so high that it is not of general interest to release them?


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many applications were received under competition No. 62-452 for pension medical advisers (medical officer 4) with the Canadian pension commission?
2.	Who will compose the "selection board"?
3.	How many applications were received from veterans with overseas service?
4.	How many applicants will be invited to appear before the "selection board"?

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


LOT 19, JUNCTION GORE, GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Mcllrailh:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report declaring the land (being part of lot 19, Junction gore, Gloucester township) surplus as referred to in order for return, sessional paper 194, tabled on the 14th of February, 19S2.
Motion agreed to.
and we have agreed upon the matters which should be included in its terms, so I accept the motion.
William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister, and assure the house that we will have economy in the production of the papers involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any modification to be made in the motion? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Martel:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all agreements, contracts, and other documents relating to the construction, under the roads to resources program, of the Amos-Mattagami highway including a copy of the contract entered into by the province of Quebec or the department concerned and the general contractor who carried out these works; a list of names and addresses of persons who worked for the general contractor and the provincial department concerned on the construction of the said highway; a list of subcontracts given out by the general contractor in connection with these works and the names of individuals or companies having rented equipment, by the hour or on a contract basis, for the carrying out of the general contract or the subcontracts in question; a list of suppliers, and the names of those who recommended them to the general contractor or the subcontractors.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, since this subject was raised in the house last Wednesday I have had an opportunity of examining the roads to resources agreement with the province of Quebec. It seems to me that under the terms of the agreement the federal minister can ask for this information. For the purposes of audit and general examination. I am, therefore, accepting this motion subject to the province agreeing to the tabling of the information in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Benidickson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of rulings, directives, regulations, and prescriptions of the Minister of National Revenue, and also orders in council issued under authority of sections 39, 40, 40A, and 40B of the Customs Act (as amended by chapter 26, Statutes of Canada 1958); and a copy of ministerial orders issued since April 17,	1961; under the
provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties on imports.
George Clyde Nowlan: The terms of this motion are wider than I would normally like to accept. I have had a discussion with my hon. friend


NATIONAL DEFENCE PROPERTY PURCHASE, COQUITLAM DISTRICT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Regier:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all tender calls issued to date, bids received as a result of such tender calls, and correspondence between individuals, organizations, corporations, and the government or any of its agencies, having to do with property bought for the Department of National Defence in the district of Coquitlam.
Mr. O'Hurley:: I have met with the hon. member and we have made an agreement that, since this is a voluminous file, I will furnish him with the results of the last tender called.


Mr. Regier:: That will be satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to that explanation, is it the pleasure of the house to accept the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Fisher:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any information in the hands of the chief electoral officer regarding the numbers and locations of Indians in the federal riding of Port Arthur and in particular, any information received from the Indian affairs branch with a view to assisting the chief electoral officer in covering this riding in the next general election.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all directives issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Indian affairs branch since January 1, 1960, to any employee of the said branch, and in particular to a Mr. Paul Brett, forester, relating to the proposed sale of timber situated on the Tsimpsean Indian reserve no. 2.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion calls for the production of what are considered to be privileged papers, that is correspondence between headquarters and employees, and therefore cannot be accepted.


Frank Howard: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that it calls for a copy of directives issued from the ministerial level down, and it seems to me it would not fall within that class.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the objection. Does he wish to withdraw or proceed with his motion?


Frank Howard: I think it must be proceeded with, Mr. Speaker; there is too much cloud over this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken
Aitken, Miss
Allard
Allmark
Asselin
Balcer
Baldwin
Barrington
Baskin
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Belzile
Best
Bourbonnais
Bourdages
Broome
Browne (St. John's West) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Brunsden C adieu Campbell
(Lambton-Kent) Campbell (Stormont) Cardiff Cathers Chambers Charlton Chatterton Churchill Coates Creaghan Crouse Danforth Deschambault
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Dorion
Doucett
Drouin
Drysdale
Dubois
English
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming (Eglinton) Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flemming (Royal)
Flynn
Fortin
Fulton
Gillet
Green
Grenier
Grills
Hales
Halpenny
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hanbidge
Harkness
Hicks
Horner (Acadia)
Horner (The Battlefords)
Howe
Johnson
Jones
Jorgenson
Keays
Kennedy
Korchinski


TIMBER SURVEY, INDIAN RESERVES, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a list of the names of each Indian reserve in British Columbia and the names of each Indian band to which each such reserve belongs which has had a timber survey conducted upon it by, or under the direction of, a Mr. Paul Brett, forester of the Indian affairs branch, along with the results of each such survey in terms of volume of timber by species and the acreage covered, and an indication as to whether or not any plans are in the offing for the sale of all or any part of the said timber and, if for a part of it, the percentage, by species and acreage, and for the details of any such plans.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any member thereof, the Indian affairs branch or any officer or employee thereof, since January 1,	1954, and any other person,
corporation, or organization relating to all proposed or actual sales of timber situated on the Tsimpsean Indian reserve no. 2.
Motion agreed to.
2488	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all resolutions, dealing with all proposed or actual sales of timber situated on the Tsimpsean Indian reserve no. 2, passed by the Tsimpsean Indian band or the Tsimpsean Indian band council.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1956 and 1962
Motion No. 48-Mr. Carter:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of the last questionnaire used by the dominion bureau of statistics in obtaining a sample for the basis of assessing the number of unemployed in 1956, and a copy of the last questionnaire used for the same purpose in 1962.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the report in this morning's newspapers attributed to officials of the United Kingdom government, to the effect that a commonwealth prime ministers' conference is likely to be held toward the end of May or in June?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I can make no comment on that today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of a report in the Ottawa Citizen of April 3 entitled "NATO Nuclear Policy will set 'guide lines' ", can the Prime Minister assure the house that the Canadian delegation at the NATO permanent council will press at the forthcoming Athens meeting for a new strategy involving progressively diminishing reliance on nuclear weapons and more and more reliance on disengagement and disarmament?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, meetings of the permanent council of NATO are not reported to the house. I could not comment on this speculative report.


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Transport. In view of the report in today's Globe and Mail that the Ontario court of appeal has allowed the appeal of the minister from the judgment of Chief Justice McRuer, concerning the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors for a satellite of station CFQC-TV Saskatoon at Stranraer, Saskatchewan, can the minister say whether he will now grant the licence immediately?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have also seen the report to which reference is made. I have asked the law officers of my department to peruse the reasons for judgment as soon as possible so that a licence may be granted without delay. I know that my hon. friend wants his constituents to be able to watch the hockey play-offs, and I assure him we will do everything we can to please him.


Mr. Hellyer:: Undoubtedly they will enjoy the election results as well.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: A supplementary question to the previous question of the hon. member for Kindersley, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport if it is not customary to allow a certain period of time to elapse so that appeals may be made against decisions of the court of appeal?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this is an expression of a legal opinion. I would not like to enter into a contest with my hon. friend on that subject. However, as I said earlier the law officers of my department will peruse the reasons for judgment and we will act accordingly.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether he is really in favour of Saskatoon or Swift Current?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am really in favour of the public in the area receiving good television reception.
(Translation):


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant

for the Minister of Agriculture, to whom I sent notice. In his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the great confusion which exists among farmers, could the minister give us further explanations by telling us how compensatory payments will be applied to milk to be used in the production of cheese?


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: The confusion is only in the member's mind.
[Text):


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, discussions with respect to the dairy program for the year starting May 1 are still continuing with industry groups. It will be a few days yet before an announcement can be made with respect to details.


MARITIME PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Have any of the governments of the maritime provinces been in contact with the federal government with regard to the disastrous flood that has caused extensive damage, particularly in Westmorland and Cumberland counties?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there have been such contacts, but I shall make inquiries.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister could report to the house on the serious damage to the main Canadian National Railways line in southeastern New Brunswick between the city of Moncton and the Nova Scotia border, and whether he could indicate to the house when this damage will be repaired so that transportation may be carried on?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a report from the Canadian National Railways in the very near future and will be pleased to make the contents of that report known to the house.


MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Northern Affairs
Inquiries of the Ministry and National Resources whether a final agreement has been reached with the government of Manitoba about the Winnipeg Floodway?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether the difficulty is that the federal government is insisting upon a ceiling on its expenditures?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say there is no difficulty at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say
whether he expects that final agreement will be reached in the very near future?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, quite soon.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the somewhat indefinite answer I obtained concerning the Jacques Cartier bridge. I wish to ask the minister whether negotiations are coming along successfully in regard to the relationship of the provincial and municipal governments in this toll matter?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week I answered a question directed to me by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville. As I said then a meeting had been arranged among representatives of the federal and provincial governments and the city, to be held next Monday here in Ottawa.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to the acting minister. In respect to the new building to be erected by the government to house the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Forestry, will the minister make sure that the greatest possible use of wood will be made especially in the interior of the building, to take as full advantage as possible of the many species of wood we have in this country?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering whether we might make use of some heads around here. I shall have to take that question as notice.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the parliament at Westminster took final measures to dissolve the British West Indies federation. Now that that has been done is our government contemplating offering either economic or political union to the British territories in the Caribbean?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a related question. Can the minister say whether the government has given any consideration to using its good offices with a view to assisting, if possible, in the maintenance of the lesser union of Barbados, the Windward islands and the Leeward islands which I understand Sir Grantley Adams is trying hard to achieve, and which would be certainly in the interests of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: We are only too glad to give what help we can. There is some balance remaining of the $10 million which was allocated for help to the West Indies federation. If I remember correctly, the bulk of what remains is being spent to help the smaller islands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may do so I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister say what disposition is now likely to be made of the ships that were made available by Canada?


Howard Charles Green: The ships were turned over to the West Indies federation. They are therefore not under the control of Canada in any way.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: On Friday last the hon. member for Lamb-ton West inquired as to co-operation between

Canada and the United States in efforts to eliminate oil pollution of waters of the great lakes. I might say that the United States refuse act is used for the prosecution of oil pollution cases in United States territorial waters in the great lakes area, and the oil pollution prevention regulations are used in Canadian territorial waters.
When cases of oil pollution occur in the great lakes area near territorial boundaries, the United States coastguard are contacted and such matters are dealt with to our mutual satisfaction. A close liaison exists between this department and the United States coastguard in this matter as in other maritime affairs.
As the house knows, both the United States and Canada are represented at the international conference on the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil now taking place at London. Both countries are signatories to the international convention of 1954.


CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-38, to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Marti-neau in the chair.
On clause 3-Application of part I.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 3 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the clause carries may I ask whether the minister can now tell us whether under the existing law statistics are required to show the extent of foreign ownership of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company?


Mr. Fulton:: I think the answer would be as follows, Mr. Chairman. While under the Railway Act there is no precise requirement such as that which the hon. member has mentioned, nevertheless the fact is that as a result of various royal commission inquiries and studies plus hearings of one sort or another before the board of transport commissioners and elsewhere, the facts are known as to the extent and the effects of foreign ownership as it may exist, of the two companies in question. They are fully known both, as I say, with respect to its extent and its effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not particularly interested in the C.P.R. as I think everybody realizes that the direction of the C.P.R. is exclusively in Canada, wherever the ownership may be. I am quite sincere in saying

that. I do not think many Canadians feel the same way about the Bell Telephone Company. If the facts are known, can the minister indicate the degree of foreign ownership there is, as of the latest information available to the government, with respect to the Bell Telephone Company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I could get that information. I am not sure that I have it here. When we come to the balance of the schedule, I shall be able to give that information and indeed with respect to any of these companies. If at that time there is a strong view or agreement here that necessary changes should be made so as to remove them from the exemption, that matter could be considered at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Particularly in the case of telephone companies, since there will be a difference between the Bell Telephone Company and companies incorporated under provincial charter which would not come under the Railway Act, I think it would be rather unfair to make these smaller companies that are incorporated under provincial charter give a great deal of information that we may not require of the Bell Telephone Company. However, I am quite content to leave the matter until the minister comes to the schedule.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I do not know whether or not I understood the minister correctly. There was a great deal of rustling in the chamber at the time. Did I understand the minister to say that for the purpose of this bill, which is to get full information with regard to foreign domination, it would be adequate in certain fields to depend on reports of royal commissions?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I must ask the hon. member to repeat his question. I apologize for doing so.


Murdo William Martin: As I say, I may have misunderstood the minister. There was some unrest and noise in the chamber at the time. Am I to understand the minister said that for the purpose of this bill, which is to get full and complete knowledge of foreign domination of certain companies, it would be adequate to depend on the reports of royal commissions in certain cases?


Mr. Fullon:: No, I do not think I said that. What I said was that, with respect to the companies that have been named-and I was replying to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate who named -two companies -it is our feeling as a result of inquiries that have been made from time to time, information of which is available to us, the extent and the effect of foreign domination
Corporations and Labour Unions of those companies is well known to the government now and will continue to be known by virtue of the methods of their operation and the reporting requirements to which they are now subject. However, I also said that if it was felt that with respect to one or other of those particular companies there was a reason why it should be done, consideration might be given to their exemption or their removal from the schedule and that I should be glad to discuss that matter in detail when we come to the schedule itself.


Frank Howard: Surely this is as good a place as any to talk about it. We spent a fair amount of time yesterday dealing with this self-same subject. It is true that it was in an all inclusive way by way of an amendment of mine. However, it was related to the schedule. I think this matter would have a bearing on what feelings might be expressed with respect to varying or substituting parts of the bill which outline in detail what information is to be required.


Mr. Peters:: It seems to me that if the government are honest in their intention really to assess who owns what company and as the minister said, the extent of foreign domination, we can only assume that this is really not what he wants to do, if he will not include these other companies.
As an example, let us take a small telephone company that probably has a provincial charter. When it is able to outbid the Bell Telephone Company for franchises in various parts of the country the question arises, who owns this particular company? Is it still a Canadian company? I would think not and everybody else thinks not. One can guess who does. However, I doubt that the minister will be able to find out, and if he is not willing to And out, if he does not want to know as a matter of course, then I would think he is not being very honest in saying that the reason for the bill is to develop Canadian ownership and to know the situation exactly with regard to Canadian ownership and control of companies and unions.
He mentioned the fact that some unions with 100 members or less are exempted. These 100 members would pay at least $5 each a month for union dues, which is not the minimum by any means, and this means that in a year they will only be paying $6,000 altogether and will have assets, according to the minister, of something like $3,000. I think that the size of the company would be a fair yardstick but many of the major companies in the country are exempted, and I do not think that the minister is going to be able to stand up in the house and say that he wants to do this simply to protect Canadians and to ascertain

Corporations and Labour Unions the extent of foreign ownership and maintain Canadian domination and control over either unions or corporations.
Before I am willing to support the bill the minister will have to give a much better explanation of what he said was his prime purpose in introducing the legislation. If he does not do so, I can only assume that what he has done is to revise the bill he presented to the house last year, and that the bill now before us is not even a weak facsimile of the act that was passed in the United States on which he said the first measure he presented to the house was based. If this is what he has done, it would seem to me, after reading and agreeing with the principles of the labour management reporting and disclosure act of 1959 in the United States, that we would be much happier in this house if we accepted a bill of that kind than we would be with the one we now have before us.
I am surprised that the limits that have been applied in the exemptions set forth in the schedule are considered by the minister to be justified. If he is realistic about the matter I think he will agree that, although the information is available in some form in some department or agency of the government, this is not exactly what he wanted to accomplish by the bill, namely, to get all the information in one place where it could be examined and an over-all assessment of the Canadian economy could be made. If we have to go back to old reports made by commissions conducting investigations under the Combines Investigation Act, I think the purpose in mind will not be met. I maintain that most of the information that will be obtained under this legislation is already available in departments and agencies of the government to anyone who wants to look for it, and the only justification there is for passing this legislation is to be able to get an over-all picture. I suggest that in adopting this clause with the limitations that are set forth in the schedule we will certainly not be accomplishing what the minister says he wants to accomplish. I think this is a very good place for the minister to decide to make some amendments in order to do away with what we consider to be a very large loophole in his reasoning. This would be a very good place for him to make a start.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there must, I think, be a fundamental misapprehension regarding the effects of the bill in the minds of the hon. members in that corner of the house, or else I am satisfied they would not say what has just been said. In the first place, to deal with the points as I remember them, both the scope and the details required under this legislation are appreciably wider

as contained in the bill than they were in the bill which was introduced in the house last session. The hon. member has only to look at the requirements contained in clause 4 to see the very great extent to which the financial implications and details now required are extended beyond what would have been required under the earlier bill. He has also only to look at the definition of "corporation" and the other provisions affecting that to see that the number of companies who will now have to report is greatly enlarged compared with the number that would have been required to report under Bill No. C-70 last year.
The reason for making the exemptions contained in the schedule is that we considered it was not good practice and not necessary to make companies which are already under a very heavy burden of statistical reporting enlarge the burden by reporting under this measure if we were satisfied that the kind of information they now report to other places is (a) approximately as complete in its detail and coverage as what would be required here and (b) already available to the government. We came to the conclusion that the classes of corporations outlined in the exemptions mentioned in the schedule do qualify under these headings, namely that they report in comparatively equal detail already and that the information so reported is available to the government.
Let us take particularly, for instance, those in paragraph 15 of the schedule, to which a good deal of attention has been devoted. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that if you stop to think of it you will realize that the railway companies and the telephone company referred to are under a very heavy burden of reporting to the board of transport commissioners under the provisions of the Railway Act. Every time a rate application comes up there is a vast volume of information that is required to be filed with the board of transport commissioners. I assure my hon. friends that there is really a very heavy burden of reporting already laid upon these companies.
So we asked ourselves the question, should we add to that the burden of reporting simply for the sake of securing information under this act rather than under some other heading, having in mind especially that the information so filed already under that other heading is already available to the government? We came to the conclusion that on those grounds the class of companies in head 15 of the schedule, as well as those in the first six heads of the schedule, should not be subject to the additional burden of having to report under this legislation.

As I say, when we come to any particular heading in the schedule I will be glad to have a look at it and if we should become satisfied that we are wrong and that either the kind of information we want is not available or it is already reported but is not available to the government, then we would be prepared to reconsider our decision as reflected in the schedule. However, I do hope that when hon. members come to that point they will give due weight to the fact of the already quite considerable, indeed very considerable, burden of reporting to which these companies are already subject.
To deal with the only other point that I recall being raised, it was that by virtue of this exemption in head 15 smaller telephone companies or other telephone companies are not going to have to report and that they might well be foreign controlled to a degree or in total. That is completely misconstruing the effect of the bill and the schedule. Every company in Canada, subject only to the revenue and asset lower limits contained in the schedule, is required to report unless it is exempted by the schedule.
The only telephone companies exempted by the schedule are those in respect of which returns are made to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada in pursuance of the Railway Act. The telephone companies which report to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada are exempt from reporting because we feel information of the type we want is already available. Telephone companies which do not report to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada will be required to file returns under this act. One way or the other, therefore, we feel we will have all the information we want to have in respect of telephone companies in Canada.


William Arnold Peters: I believe that, in one way or another, all this information is already available to the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case. The telephone companies not required to report to the board of transport commissioners would only be required to make such annual returns as might be called for under the Companies Act under which they were incorporated. I can assure my hon. friend that the information contained in those annual returns is not anything like as extensive as the information we are requesting under this bill. The information, therefore, would not at the present time be available to the government.


William Arnold Peters: I was not referring only to the Companies Act but I was thinking also of the Department of National Revenue, the tariff structure, and the board of transport
26207-1-159
4,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions commissioners, other segments of the government to which returns are made that are somewhat of the same nature. The government would have this information, but the general public would not. I would assume that the type of information referred to in the first part of the bill is public information which would allow the general public to make a decision, and is not secret information. This type of information, in most cases, is already available to the government.


James Ross Fulton: I am sure the hon. member knows that the government, as such, does not receive income tax returns from corporations. There are well defined provisions in the act which maintain the confidential nature of the returns which go to the Department of National Revenue only. This government, as a whole, does not receive information filed in statistical returns with the bureau of statistics under the Statistics Act. The confidentiality of it is preserved even from the government. It was for these reasons, as I said earlier, it was felt it would be undesirable to amend the Statistics Act to allow these returns to be made available to the government because an excellent and desirable reputation for confidentiality and reliability of the bureau has been built up in respect of these returns. We did not want to tamper with that.
As I explained also, we came to the conclusion the best way to achieve the purpose we had in mind was to enact this bill and make requirements for reporting all the details under this act that will be available to the government. The only class of corporations that were exempted from these new requirements were those who report already under some other statute in a manner in which that information is available to the government, such as under the Railway Act, the Bank Act or the various other statutes mentioned in the schedule.


Murdo William Martin: Is this not tantamount to discrimination? As I understand the minister's explanation, we will have two different classes of corporations reporting to the government, one under the new bill and that information will be half public and half private, and the others in the present schedule that will not be required to give public information at all. Is this not a discriminatory aspect of this bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We went through all this last night. I can only regret that the hon. member was not in the house when I pointed out that under other statutes, for instance, such as the Insurance Act, the insurance companies report in great detail to the superintendent of insurance. The superintendent of

Corporations and Labour Unions
insurance then compiles a statistical analysis of the facts and of the returns he receives, and reports that in turn to the public. The dominion bureau of statistics, in almost the same way, will compile a statistical analysis or summary for the B returns that it receives under this act and that report will be available to the public. There is, therefore, a close parallel between the two classes of companies, the ones included in the schedule on the one hand and the companies not included on the other hand.


Murdo William Martin: This may be true, but where is the similarity between the companies under the schedule, so far as the A section of this bill is concerned? I agree that the B section will be similar.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In order to understand this properly, I think I must go back a bit. This bill will cover all corporations, whether public or private. Private corporations do not now require to make an annual return in public of the sort that public corporations make containing lists of directors, etc. This information is not made public by private corporations at the moment. As a result of the provisions of this bill, that information will now be included in part A of the returns and will be available for inspection by any member of the public on payment of a dollar search fee.
All classes of companies listed in the schedule are public companies required to make, some of them annually, reports to their shareholders which they must release as well as filing all this statistical information with the various bodies to which I have referred. These companies listed in the schedule, therefore, already make available the information we are now requiring private companies as well as public companies to file. There will be a virtual parallel between the kind of information required to be filed and the availability of that information as between companies under the bill and companies under the schedule.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will be interested in this, I am advised that the annual report of the Bell Telephone Company for the year ended December 31, 1961 states that of the total shares outstanding, 92.2 per cent are held in Canada and in 1954 the percentage was 90 per cent.


Mr. Caron:: Do they give the names of the subsidiary companies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not got that. This statement is based on a very quick glance at the report.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the minister get the information to see if the subsidiary companies are included in the report?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but I think the report is as available to my hon. friend as it is to me.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You have more help than we have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will have the annual report of the Bell Telephone Company here when we reach the schedule.


Mr. Pitman:: We do not wish to hold up the legislation, but there seems to be some discrepancy between what the minister says and the result of this bill with which we are dealing in committee. I should like to read two or three sentences from the minister's speech when he introduced this measure. As reported on page 2401 of Hansard for April 2, 1962, the minister said:
We are on the threshold of exciting and challenging opportunities for Canada. We have been through difficult times and decisions. We will face equally difficult times and decisions. But surely, we as Canadians, even if we are only 18 million people, are not afraid to measure up to the challenges of new opportunities and decisions affecting our economy. What better way can we measure up to new opportunities than by formulating our policies on the basis of information as to where we now stand in reality.
Surely, the criterion for this bill should not be whether or not it will be a great deal of trouble and perhaps some expense to obtain this information. If we really want to see where we now stand we should be ready,, as a government, to subsidize the cost of obtaining this kind of information. Surely, we should have a full picture of what is going on in the area of insurance companies, in the area of trust companies and so on. To say that these are already reported is simply not good enough. Surely the criterion is not whether we have information in this part of government, in this division of this particular department, or some other division; that will not give us the picture as to where we now stand in reality, as the minister puts it. Surely the criterion is whether this information will be as readily available, whether it will be as easily accessible, whether it will be in a form which can be correlated and compared with the reports which will be submitted as a result of this particular legislation. That should be the criterion.
It is very easy to say that the government already has this information in other forms in other departments or various branches of various departments, but unless this is brought into one area it will not be of any use. Having in mind what the minister has

said with regard to not wanting to be involved in the Statistics Act, wanting to bring these various branches together under a standardized form so that all these other areas report in the same form, that argument simply leaves me cold. If we are trying to do what the minister says we are trying to do, namely get the full picture of the entire economy in all its facets and complexity, surely this argument that it is simply too much trouble for the businessman on the one hand-who I say could be subsidized-or that we do not interfere in certain other areas, as far as the government is concerned, is not valid because I cannot see how this is going to happen.
I do not think the minister has yet indicated whether, when we do formulate our policies, we will have as easily accessible and as readily available information as we would have if all these various sections of the schedule were brought under the act and we had a definite, formulated plan under which we could bring all these areas of our economy before the scrutiny of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, again I can only express regret that apparently the hon. member was not here last evening when I answered a question on all fours with that and said that I can state, without reservation, that it is our view that information with regard to the operation of all companies in the classes named in the schedule is now available, and is as readily available to the government by virtue of the present requirements for reporting that apply to those companies as will be the information from companies covered under the provisions of this bill. Information in as much detail and in a fashion as accessible to the government is already available.
Furthermore, in the case of the companies covered by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act, the Minister of Finance is already bound to make an annual report to parliament containing the information already passed on to him by the officers to whom those companies report. So not only do we have complete information as to their operations and structure available already to members of the public service, and thus to the government, but we already have those members of the public service reporting to the Minister of Finance the factual details derived from those reports, in summary form, and the Minister of Finance in return placing those reports before parliament.
Furthermore, take for instance insurance companies. I assure the hon. member that
26207-1-159i
4,	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions the superintendent of insurance can obtain from those companies at any time just whatever information he likes to ask of them. As I say, those companies make this information available. It is available, and we just did not see any reason for duplicating the requirement of reporting.


William Arnold Peters: Nobody is arguing that these things are not available; we know this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is precisely what the hon. member said earlier.


William Arnold Peters: We also know that this act is as empty as the pages at the end of its printed section. It just does not mean anything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, how can my hon. friend say, "It just does not mean anything" when 25,000 companies will be required to report under it who do not report this information to us at all now. Let me give examples. The General Motors Company of Canada does not report at all now; they will have to report under this act. Then there is General Electric, Westinghouse, just to name a few who now give only a fraction of what we are asking for here. I do not want to go into too much detail, but these are big companies with respect to whom we now have a dearth of information and which will be required to report under this bill. Does my hon. friend say that accomplishes nothing? That is absolute nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: The Gordon commission sat and examined Canadian companies, and in reading their report I found that nowhere were they unable to get the information necessary for making an economic survey of the Canadian scene. If we are going to do it in the one paper, in the one book or in the one publication, knowing full well that the Department of the Secretary of State companies branch has not functioned for many years, we are in agreement that if we are going to do this we must put it all together and we will have this information. Then if some newspaperman in Toronto wants to pick up the publication and find out who owns Canada, all he has to do is pick it up and he can find it all in the one book. I cannot see any reason why we should not make companies not now reporting come under this bill. I do not mean that we would have to have all the details of all the shareholders, and so on, of these companies, but at least we should have the full details under section A which will allow for the publication of this information.
The minister says that 25,000 companies will have to report, but perhaps 25,000 companies will not have to report. No matter what decision is made on this information,
2496	HOUSE OF
Corporations and Labour Unions the information will be incomplete. If we are really going to find out who owns Canada, if this is our purpose, I think we can legitimately ask all companies to report. We know that you can look up an insurance company if you wish and find out many of these particulars. We know this, and we know it is a difficult process. We know that we have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining this information and putting it into relationship with other insurance companies, but we do this every time we are interested in an insurance company being incorporated in Canada. Members of parliament do this. But I am sure that the average person across Canada will get very little information out of these figures that are presented.
We are not asking-at least, I personally am not asking-that the section that cannot be disclosed to the general public be included, but at least this argument applies to the section that will give what the minister considers to be the pertinent information as to the control of Canadian companies by Canadians or the control by foreign interests, and who they are. This information could easily be gathered in one particular place, which would obviously be the new department which is being created. It could be given in the publication that would come from that department.
The minister says that the government wants this new information. The story around the country is that this is to find out about these terrific and terrible organizations, the labour unions, in Canada. I belong to several of those large organizations, and I am sure that the minister and some of his colleagues have asked for their financial statements and they have been provided without any question at all. This information is published in the daily newspapers; you can get it easily. You do not have to pass a bill to obtain it, because it is already available to everyone who wants to look it up. I think the only justification for this bill is to get this information all in one place so that it will have a relationship to other organizations with which these companies are connected. All this information would then appear in one publication.
Supposing we left out 10,000 companies;
I do not think the results obtained from the other 25,000 companies would be of much value except as curiosity value, because you still would not be able to find out where the Canadian economy is going if there were a large percentage or a percentage over in left field over which you had no control at all and in regard to which you did not have this information available and had to look for it somewhere else.
The most useful way of obtaining this information would be if it were provided in the


publication for which the minister is now being asked. I believe that this bill would serve no useful purpose if whoever was looking at this information had to say, "But 10 per cent of the Canadian economy is in government controlled corporations. It is in companies already incorporated under other statutes which have to say that they are Canadian controlled, and these other companies must report annually to parliament and are therefore not to be taken into consideration."
I agree with my hon. friend that this is not likely to involve a great deal of money. It is information that the auditor will have to concern himself with anyway, if he is reporting on these other agencies; so I think the minister is not being realistic when he says we shall be able to get this information from other sources, and that there is no legitimate reason for having it in this form. If there is not, I do not think there is any reason for having the other 75 per cent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member overlooks the fact that the dominion statistician will have available all the information with respect to the companies in the schedule to which I have referred, and it will not be beyond his power to include that information in the report he makes. It will be a comprehensive report covering all the companies in Canada.


Frank Howard: It is amazing what a good night's sleep will do. The minister says it will now be available and last night he said he was not sure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not correct. I said the same thing last night.


Frank Howard: Well, the general public can read Hansard as we can here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Better, apparently.


Frank Howard: The minister's statements are there. In any event I should like to raise another question and say that it seems to me incongruous that here we are in the Canadian House of Commons considering, at the insistence of the government, a bill which is supposed to promote some degree of Canadian-ism in one way or another, a bill giving some effect to our feelings as Canadians and designed, eventually, to bring some of these corporations under Canadian control; yet in all of this we find that the minister in drafting the law is using an American phrase throughout, because he knows as well as I do that the word "corporation" is a Yankee phrase for a business structure-a structure which in Canada is known almost exclusively as a company. For example, in the Companies Act the word "company" is used throughout. That is the word used in Canada to designate these

organizations, yet the minister resorts to the American phrase and uses the word "corporation". If the hon. gentleman is influenced to that degree by American terminology we are bound to wonder whether he means what he says when he talks about the objects and likely effects of this bill.


James Ross Fulton: By way of comment on what has been said, I might point out that in the Interpretation Act "person" has been defined to include a corporation since 1867. The word "corporation" is well known in British and Canadian legal terminology, the hon. member's view notwithstanding. It also appears in the Companies Act and it appears as well in the titles of a great many Canadian public corporations. It occurs in the Financial Administration Act and so on.


Frank Howard: That only indicates the degree of American influence which has infiltrated the government in drafting legislation.


James Ross Fulton: Does the hon. member suggest there was American influence in 1867?


Frank Howard: If the minister wants to repatriate anything, why does he not repatriate the language, first of all? Look at the classifications set out here in the bill. The minister knows what the Companies Act says and to what it applies. It is true these other things exist as well, but that only shows the American influence.


William Moore Benidickson: I regret that I have not been present during this debate for the last half an hour and I do not want to duplicate this discussion in any way. There are people who will call me to order if the points I raise have already been discussed. I had other urgent business to attend to.
Since the discussion last night in which I was involved, I have found that the Railway Act contains a section in addition to that to which I referred last night-section 391, I think. But in connection with section 391 there is a suggestion, in fact there is a directive, that information provided by a company-a railway company, a telephone company, or an express company incorporated under the Railway Act-must give certain information to the board of transport commissioners. But that information is not available to the public in a way such as is contemplated-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor is schedule B information here available to the public.


William Moore Benidickson: Not schedule B of this act. To sum up, I understand that financial information is not to be available to a representative of the public on payment of one dollar going to a certain minister's office. That is true, I agree, as far as the public
4.	1962
Corporations and Labour Unions reports are concerned. But as to the type of company referred to in the schedule which we discussed last night, items 1 to 6, about which there are published reports, it seems to me incongruous to find that all these companies do provide public information with respect to profit and loss, the very thing which has to remain secret with respect to other corporations under this bill. But these same companies do not, as I understand it, provide the public with the same accessibility on payment of one dollar as this bill makes necessary for all other corporations across Canada.
I think, as I said last night, that this is a sham-that this is a half baked measure and one which has not been properly presented by the minister. As far as banks are concerned, since our debate last night I have found that under the Bank Act, section 113, there is an obligation for the banks of our country within 30 days of the annual general meeting to transmit to the minister a return showing the name and address-I emphasize the word "address"-of each director. I referred to this yesterday in connection particularly with companies incorporated under the Railway Act. Now what does "address" mean? It means anything. I said yesterday it could involve a box number. If a wealthy man could employ a secretary in Montreal, or even have one of those recording machines to say that his address was box so and so, Montreal, he might be able to give Montreal as an address though his nationality might be other than Canadian.
I admitted yesterday that I had not looked at the Railway Act as carefully as I should have, but no member can look at all these statutes. I felt the minister last night was not as familiar with some of these statutes as he should have been. I did not refer last night to section 391 of the Railway Act. Neither did the minister. But if he looks at subsection 3 of that section he will find it might be possible for the board of transport commissioners to obtain information additional to that described, but under certain conditions. Why should our major industries such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Bell Telephone Company and others have an easier way of satisfying the desire on the part of the government to obtain information about foreign shareholding content than is provided in this bill?
I did not refer very much to insurance companies, and trust and loan companies last evening, but with respect to such companies I find there is executive discretion here. I observe that the minister has wide powers to obtain from such companies information on a prescribed form which he is empowered to change from year to year. All of these people

Corporations and Labour Unions might be put in the position of providing carbon copies of the type of information that other small companies across Canada are asked for under this bill, but that has not been the practice.
The chief point I wish to present to the minister is that there is discrimination here. The big companies such as insurance and trust and loan companies, railway companies, telephone companies and others that have good, efficient and, I assume, well paid accounting staffs, could provide this information; but the minister is placing an obligation upon all the other companies described in this bill for the provision of information which, as I said yesterday and as the hon. member for Skeena also said, does not relate oranges to grapefruit under any statistical form.
If I were to say this bill is insincere I would be guilty of using an unparliamentary phrase, but allow me to say that it represents something which I do not think will be proceeded with to any extent following the next election. As I said yesterday, this is window dressing. I do not see that the measure is of much advantage to the country, especially when there is no harmony in the correlation of statistical information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is obvious. The minister has gone out of his way to refer to another mammoth corporation, General Motors-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because you said the big companies will not have to report under this bill, and many of them will, many of them.


William Moore Benidickson: If the minister wishes to obtain information about General Motors, I am satisfied that information is already available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where? May I ask my hon. friend where? Where does General Motors of Canada report in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: To the income tax branch.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend as the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance is well aware of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act. He knows that the Minister of National Revenue is not at liberty to disclose anything with respect to income tax information that he receives.


William Moore Benidickson: I agree. I do not see any
purpose in advancing the information unless the information to be obtained is more pertinent and useful than is involved in this biU.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we come to clause 4 perhaps we can discuss that. I shall be glad to.


William Moore Benidickson: The cat is now out of the bag. The minister is interested in General Motors.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was merely one example.


William Moore Benidickson: All these other companies will be required to give innocent information the reporting of which will cost each corporation between $100 and $500. Yesterday the minister mentioned 25,000 firms. I do not know why this bill should require that procedure unless we are sure that some of the larger Canadian corporations incorporated under federal statutes are equally required to supply information that can be collated and assessed so that an impression may be obtained of foreign shareholding content. I think of telephone companies. I also think of my hon. friend to my left. I will not name him, but I know he is worried about this. Under section 391 of the Railway Act the Bell Telephone Company is required to provide certain information. All its competitors are required to give the public on payment of $1 a lot of information that the Bell Telephone Company is not required to provide. There may be private railway companies in this country other than the C.P.R. affected. I imagine they are exempt from

providing information as to the nationality of the owners of stock in those companies.
According to the election campaign of 1957, nationality is a big factor. There is nothing in items Nos. 1 to 6 of the schedules which requires disclosure of nationality. The items I referred to last night and particularly item No. 16 do not require disclosure of nationality. Why does the minister tell us there is a basic similiarity in the information to be provided if the biggest corporations across Canada are exempt from providing duplicate information of an identical nature?


Frank Howard: A moment ago the minister said again-he has said this a number of times; he said it in reply to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River-that it was the desire of the government, as I gathered his words, to get information about the operation of the Canadian economy; that this was most necessary for the government in order to be able to deal with the economy; that they want the facts, the true facts, all the facts and the precise facts. This is what I understand is the desire of the government.
All we need to do is to balance that statement against the bill before us which is not designed to get all the facts but only some of the facts and which is not designed to get all of the information but only some of the information, and to balance that statement made by the minister just a moment ago against his attitude and the attitude of his government when the Combines Investigation Act was being considered by this parliament and by the banking and commerce committee. There a number of demands were made to have companies file with the director of investigation and research certain types of agreements they may have one with the other in order that he may understand the situation and in order that the government would have access to information relating to the operation of the economy. At that time when we made the suggestion with regard to agreements relating to price fixing in the export field or agreements relating to the variety of other matters contained in the Combines Investigation Act, or when we asked that this information be filed with the crown or be filed with the government in order that there might be some understanding and some assessment of these collusive price fixing arrangements, the minister then said, "No, we do not wish to know anything about that matter; we are not concerned with the detrimental effects that price fixing arrangements have upon the economy-"


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If my hon. friend continues with his misrepresentation of what I said about
4, 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions the Combines Investigation Act, I shall be obliged to reply. However, I suggest to you that the discussion is out of order. If my hon. friend is allowed to continue, I shall be obliged to reply, as he is completely misstating not only what I said but the effect of the whole discussion.


Frank Howard: The effect of the whole discussion is quite clear in the statute itself, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned the matter only in passing because of the statement now made by the minister that he wishes to get that information. I say that all we have to do is to balance this statement against the bill and against what he said a couple of years ago on the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. If we do so, we shall see that they do not balance. What the minister and the government do is oftentimes quite different-and it certainly is different in this case-from what they say.
The minister made a speech to the Canadian petroleum industry on February 22, in Regina. In that speech he made reference to this particular bill. In one of his comments there- and if I may do so I will read it-he said this:
The intent of this bill is to make known the precise degree of foreign control over Canadian corporations and unions.
He has used this word "precise" on a number of occasions. Sometimes he says "somewhat precise"; sometimes he says "almost precise" or "similar". To me there is some distinction between "precise", "almost precise" and "similar". From that I take it that he was not misleading the Canadian petroleum association meeting in Regina but that he was telling them precisely what he wanted to know, namely the precise degree of foreign control over Canadian corporations and unions. However, this is not what the bill seeks to do. The bill seeks to get some information from some companies or corporations, as they are called in the bill. It seeks to get some information by way of this bill. It seeks to get other information from other types of corporations by way of other acts which are already in existence. It is certainly not the same information. The minister says that he can relate the information statistically and come up with some information. However, when we analyse the information carefully, I think we will find that it is not designed to get an understanding of the precise degree of foreign control or to get full information as to the operation of the whole Canadian economy, as there are other matters that are certainly known. The minister also placed these statistics on record. It is true that they were given in a general way. The hon. member for Leeds made reference

Corporations and Labour Unions to them, others have made reference to them and I made reference to them. I refer to the dominion bureau of statistics figures with regard to the degree of foreign control over sections of our economy.
The dominion bureau of statistics now determines, as it has been doing for some years, what is the degree of foreign control that exists over Canadian industry in the manufacturing field. That information was placed on the record. As of 1959, it was 57 per cent and it has been increasing. They have information about the petroleum and natural gas industry. In Regina on February 22 the minister told the Canadian petroleum association that the figure was approximately 75 per cent. The dominion bureau of statistics says as far as they are concerned it is 75 per cent. Information about the mining industry has been placed on the record and an analysis by the dominion bureau of statistics of the degree of the control over the Canadian industry. There is information not only about the degree of foreign control but about the degree of foreign ownership. This gives a different figure percentagewise because it adds up different bits of information. This is information which the dominion bureau of statistics has. It is available. It is a public document. How does the dominion bureau of statistics get this information? How does d.b.s. now know this and how is it able to say and to report publicly that in 1959, with respect to the mining, petroleum and natural gas manufacturing industry, the degree of foreign control over that industry was 63 per cent. How do d.b.s. know this? How do they know that this control increased in the last two years from 61 per cent? How do they know it has increased in the last five years by some 8 per cent? How do the dominion bureau of statistics get this information? Do they guess it? Do they search through information which is filed with them? Do they look through the annual reports of various companies and then say, "This is what we discover about the degree of ownership and about the degree of control"?
I think the minister, even though he is not the Minister of Trade and Commerce, owes us an explanation as to how the dominion bureau of statistics obtain the information which allows them to make the statement that there is over certain sections of our economy at the moment this degree of control which the minister blessed by making reference to it himself in the house. I think this is some information which the committee needs to have before we can proceed to determine whether or not it is really worth while to pass the bill at present before us. If this information is knowledgeable-as apparently it is, to d.b.s.-how accurate it is, I do not


know-surely that consideration may affect our decision with respect to other features of the bill as to just what type of information is required to be filed at the moment. Is this a case in which they take from public corporations any financial statements they issue or is this information which they have already gleaned in one way or another by way of statistics which are required to be filed with them?
I do not wish to be overly insistent about this matter. However, I think it is a rather important point. Apparently d.b.s. now get some statistical information. Otherwise they would not be able to come up with the statement that 63 per cent of the industry in Canada is under foreign control at the moment. We should like to know how d.b.s. get this information, what statistics are filed with them, from what sorts of corporations, or whether this is an accurate or inaccurate figure. I take it that corporations such as General Motors, which is a private company, are left outside the analysis that the bureau of statistics makes of manufacturing industries. The minister also referred to Canadian General Electric and two or three other corporations which are very large private companies that do not file information now. If these companies are outside of the area surveyed by the bureau of statistics in coming to the conclusion that the manufacturing industry of Canada is 57 per cent foreign owned, I think we are entitled to come to the conclusion that this figure is too low and should be increased in order to be more correct.
This is information which I for one would like to have from the minister so that we can assess, first, the value which we should place upon the figures already published by d.b.s. and, second, the value which we should place upon each of the provisions in section 4 asking for specific items of information. We should atempt to determine whether we really require the information requested in the bill or whether it is already being supplied in some other form. If the minister can assist the committee in this way it may help us to proceed with the consideration of the bill more speedily.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Howard: Could we have an answer from the minister?


William Moore Benidickson: -there are two or three questions I should like to address to the minister. Has he given consideration to the increase in the civil service that will be required as a result of the enactment of this legislation? Second, has he any estimate from the Department of Public Works as to what space will be required to file the reports of

25,000 companies reporting every year? How many years will these reports be kept ?
Although I am greatly alarmed by this empire building, more importantly I should like to make reference to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the obligation under that act to file information with respect to shareholdings. It is my information that prior to world war II the government was provided every five years or so with a public document recording the shareholdings of all owners of shares in the various companies that come under this act. I understand that we have not had such a publication since the war. I think this was due to a decision of the former government made on the basis of economy.
If we are concerned about retaining Canadian ownership of this important segment of our economy, then a question arises with respect to the supplying of information as to each and every shareholder of companies of this kind, including the insurance companies and the banks. The minister accused me yesterday of not even reading the last report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which I had in my files. I should like to ask the minister now whether he has given consideration to what might happen to the economy of Canada, and with respect to increased foreign ownership, if the information involved in the bill is to be made public on payment of $1? Has the minister given consideration to what might happen with respect to the raiding of some of these companies by foreign capital?
It is true that in the schedule to the bill he has exempted certain types of corporations in Canada which I think we are all proud to know are basically owned by Canadians. I have been asking why they have been exempted from the requirement of providing information as to shareholders such as is required in the main portion of the bill. Would the minister say that, so far as the corporations referred to in items 1 to 6 of the schedule are concerned, the same information should be available to the public? Surely the minister has looked at the stock market and the financial operations of the last two or three years in an objective way, as I have, and after reading the publications that report these matters is acquainted with what I call raiders.
One knows that a raider starts by looking at a record of shareholders. Has the minister started something here the results of which will be the very reverse of what he may have been persuaded by the Prime Minister was something that would fulfil his 1957 pledge to reduce foreign ownership? I say to the minister that as a result of the publication of shareholdings beyond that required under 26207-1-160
4. 1962
Corporations and Labour Unions provincial law, beyond that required by our stock exchanges and beyond that supplied confidentially to the provincial and federal governments there is a great possibility that he will encourage raiding from that larger financial force to the south of us, the United States, through take-overs that will be made possible because of the information that will be forthcoming under this legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before we go too far astray I wonder whether I might point out that, while I am anxious to co-operate with the committee and to give as much information as is relevant, the kind of speech we have heard in the last three quarters of an hour has really been the kind of speech that would be made on second or third reading when the principle of the bill is under discussion. Indeed, one hon. member used the phrase "before deciding whether or not to pass the bill I want to know" this, that or the other thing. May I point out that we are not deciding whether to pass the bill. We are dealing with the clauses of the bill because the bill was given second reading the day before yesterday. We have passed clause 1 where general discussion is by custom permitted and there was a wide ranging general discussion at that time. We are now on clause 3.
I have forborne raising this point before because I want to co-operate with the committee, but when we have the kind of speech made just now by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River then I say we are definitely engaging in a second reading type of discussion. I do not want to appear omniscient when I say this but I can assure the committee that all the points that have been raised so far were considered and that while they are all very difficult we came to the conclusion that to accomplish the object we had in mind this was the best way of doing it.
Now, with regard to the question of statistics that are compiled by the dominion bureau and published, I can refer the committee to the recent report on the Canadian balance of international payments in 1960 and the international investment position, page 62, where the bureau itself has fully set out a summary of the methods it follows in compiling these statistics and makes an assessment of their accuracy and reliability.
In so far as the question of whether or not this may open the door to raiding is concerned, I can say I certainly think it will not. It will have the opposite effect and will enable Canadians, by their increased knowledge of the affairs of these companies and the increased information available about them, more effectively to get into a position where they can participate in the direction of these companies and the

Corporations and Labour Unions benefits from them. I would remind the committee in that connection that it was this government which early in our period of responsibility, when the threat of a takeover of some quite substantial Canadian life insurance companies did develop, acted to fill the gap that had been there for so long. This provision allowed insurance companies to take steps towards mutualization which would make it impossible for these companies to be taken over.


William Moore Benidickson: Surely, the minister will agree it did not make this impossible-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If these authorized steps were taken, it would make it impossible.


William Moore Benidickson: It made it possible to avoid that result but I am saying, by virtue of this bill, you are reversing yourself. You are making raiding more possible than it ever has been before in connection with our important insurance companies, our important trust and loan companies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think if my hon. friend wanted to make this point he should have made it on second reading before he voted for the bill.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to improve the bill by amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: I do not want to go too far along the course the minister embarked upon when he objected to the trend of the discussion because last evening the minister participated in this debate along with other members. He answered, as best he could, the questions and objections which were raised as to whether or not certain corporations should be in or out of the schedule. I feel the minister was not serious a moment ago when he said he was rising to object to the course the discussion was taking because, as I said, he participated in the action which guided the discussion into this course.
The minister has said that all the points which have been raised have been carefully considered by the government in the preparation of this bill and that the government has come to the conclusion this is the best way to proceed. Well, I am amazed that the government has been able to come to a conclusion about something. However, under the parliamentary system which we have the government, in presenting its conclusions to parliament, has to explain, justify and satisfy the curiosity of members of parliament as well as of the general public as to whether or not the conclusions at which the government has arrived are correct in all the circumstances. This, the minister has not done.
rMr. Fulton.l
The minister has said that they studied carefully all these things and came to the conclusion that this was the best course to follow. The implication is, if you do not like it, lump it; we have a couple of hundred members who will support us no matter what we do, just as they did yesterday in blindly opposing the introduction of a bill without knowing what it was all about.
This is not the correct or decent way for a government to approach parliament. I only want to say that if the minister persists on this line of argument that the government studied everything, came to the conclusion that this was the best way to do it, without attempting to justify that conclusion or satisfy inquiries of members who have at least enough interest to ask questoins about it, then we will not get very far. The minister has an obligation to satisfy the many objections which are being raised by the small business people who say, "Heavenly day, we spend half of our time now filling out forms for the government, filing statistics for the dominion bureau of statistics and the various other sections of government concerning the size of our business, income, and so on."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which way do you want it, more forms or fewer forms, because you are now arguing on both sides of this question.


Frank Howard: I should like fewer ministers of justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know you would, because then you would be able to get away with more than you are getting away with now.


Frank Howard: Well, we will not get into the Columbia river discussion again. I am really telling the minister that he has an obligation to satisfy the complaints of the people in the business community who now say they are afraid that the government is enlarging upon the things that have to be filed. I think the government is now, by this bill, introducing another set of statistics to be filed. My approach to the problem yesterday was, if you are going to ask for this information, then let us put it all in one place. Let us not exempt the banks under the Bank Act from filing this information; let us not exempt trust and loan companies, radio corporations and so on under the Railway Act or the Aeronautics Act. Let us include them all.
In so far as the general question of too many forms to fill out is concerned, I raised that only to show that the minister has an obligation to satisfy these complaints and he has not done it. I wonder if I might call it five o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just point out that, as I said earlier, I am prepared to co-operate with the

committee and endeavour to satisfy the committee. This is the second day the measure has been considered in committee and we are now on clause 3. I think if members will look at Hansard, they will find that I appear quite as frequently answering questions as hon. members opposite appear asking them.
If they will not accept the explanations that I give, then of course that is not a matter over which I have any control. I do not think the record should be left at this point, however, without reminding the committee that I have endeavoured frequently to explain and satisfy the committee about the policy behind the bill and the conclusions to which we came.
I cannot compel hon. members to accept those explanations, that is just a matter of judgment.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private bills, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, and it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.


WATER RESOURCES
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed national resources council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate, and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces: in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion today I am making an appeal which has nothing to do with political beliefs or partisan convictions. The members of this party are alarmed at the sight of our industries and people polluting our waters, as it were, with their own hands from day to day. All over many parts of Canada the water table is falling, yet thousands of factories and hundreds of municipal sewer systems are discharging their wastes into our rivers and lakes with only a small fraction of our industries or municipalities giving so-called adequate treatment to this increasing flow of filth.
We all know that water is the lifeblood of any country and, while in the last 20 years 26207-1-160J
4, 1862	2503
Request Water Pollution Control Division we have more than tripled our former consumption, we are polluting our water and destroying the watersheds from whence it comes. We are destroying something without which we cannot survive and for which there is no substitute.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the soul of man, shaken and bruised by the ceaseless din of modern cities, which some people worship-and I am one who does not-and the relentless international and national sabre rattling, in this atmosphere more than ever, I believe, needs treeways rather than freeways, and pure waterways rather than sewerways.
However, regardless of these needs we continue to disfigure the natural landscape, erode our soils, destroy our forests and pollute our waters, in some cases almost with the zeal of a religious mission. It is because of the gruesome proof of the shortcomings of our legislation both federal and provincial, and the determination of this party to do all it can within its sphere of influence in the House of Commons and in the country to remedy this field, that I bring this resolution before the house this afternoon.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, the problem of pollution has been recognized officially by both federal and provincial governments -I am speaking now of the federal parliament and the provincial government of British Columbia-since 1870, and it has been recognized that some form of legislation is required. We can even read debates of that date which clearly indicate that people were concerned about this matter in 1870. If they were concerned at that time, or at least some people were, how much more concerned should we be today? Yet since that time, except for some federal legislation of a bits and bobs nature leaving the responsibility with various departments of the federal government, and some provincial legislation of the same nature leaving the responsibility with numerous departments, in most provinces there has been little effective action, because all that has been done has been on a piecemeal basis. So that while the problem has been recognized for all these years and there has been legislation in part to meet it, we find that even a river such as the Ottawa is termed by most of the people of this city as a flowing sewer. We have heard the Prime Minister deal with the pollution of the Saskatchewan river, and I know something about the increasing pollution of the great Fraser river in British Columbia and something about the very limited but none the less real pollution occurring in the Kootenay and Columbia rivers.
I introduced this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the problem is of such
2504	HOUSE OF
Request Water Pollution Control Division a nature that only co-operation among major governments can cope with it. Many local studies and efforts have been made. I saw a reference in today's Citizen, an editorial dealing with the report of the conservation board in Ontario with respect to the pollution of Ontario waters. I shall have to read this report; I shall send for a copy as soon as I can. Efforts have been made by various provincial governments and certain local authorities in cities and municipalities, and by some industries, to give them credit; also by various volunteer groups such as conservation groups and organizations of that type. But still the problem is increasing from day to day and pollution is greater in this country with every 24 hours that pass.
What we require, in the opinion of this party, is first of all a knowledge of the situation on a national basis. Then we need an understanding of the problem, an understanding on the part of our people. Strangely enough this is a problem which is not very glamourous. It is similar to the problem of the conservation of timber or the conservation of land; it does not strike the imagination of many people and very often it does not strike the imagination of the press. I noticed that in the press today there is considerable comment on the possibility of a divorce of two prominent movie people. This matter has been given far too much space in the newspapers, and they would be far better off if they reported fully my speech this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
There has to be understanding on the part of the people and there has to be co-operation among federal and provincial governments, the local authorities and the people. This type of program is just the same as a forestry or a land conservation program; governments alone cannot give effect to it; there must be the understanding and cooperation of a large percentage of the population in the area in which the program is being implemented.
Throughout the years I have subscribed to the minutes of the British Columbia natural resources conference which is held annually in Victoria, Vancouver or somewhere else in British Columbia, to which go representatives of industry, labour, universities and government and discuss the various questions related to natural resources. In this connection I wish to quote very briefly from the sixth British Columbia natural resources conference which deals quite extensively with the question of water pollution. I wish to read one paragraph which has to do with the effectiveness of the present legislation. This is what the writer has to say:
Considering the objectives for which they have been enacted, the various items of legislation have 

had considerable effect on the prevention and control of certain types of pollution. However, since the control has been carried out by separate government agencies, each with its own interest to consider, sometimes co-operating with other agencies and sometimes not,-
That is the situation today; there is duplication, overlapping.
-the existing legislation probably has not been as effective in controlling pollution in all its aspects as it might have been.
That paragraph was written by a civil servant in British Columbia, and of course he had to place the situation before the conference in modest terms; but a lot more can be read into his words than appears on the surface. However, he goes on to deal with the various departments which have to deal with this matter. As far as British Columbia is concerned, we have these government agencies responsible for dealing with water pollution: local boards of health, the health branch of the department of health and welfare, the water rights branch of the department of lands and forests, the park service of the department of lands and forests, the fisheries department, the game commission, the attorney general's department; and we have the health act of British Columbia, the sanitary regulations of British Columbia, section 58 of the municipal act, the watershed regulations, the water act and the park regulations. They all deal with the various aspects of the pollution of waters.
As far as the federal government is concerned, we have the Department of Fisheries which administers the Fisheries Act and which deals with the pollution of waters, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources which deals with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the national harbours board which deals with harbours by-laws, the Department of Transport dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act, the Department of Public Works, and the local port authorities of the Department of Transport dealing with ports under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. So we have quite a body of legislation in the federal and provincial fields.
There is a good deal of legislation in both the federal and the provincial fields but in neither of these fields has there been a great deal of co-operation, and there has not been the co-ordinated approach to this problem which is necessary if we are to meet it.
This subject was the subject of a number of papers at the resources for tomorrow conference. The minister was good enough to send me a report of this conference and I found it very interesting reading when I had any spare time, though you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have very little time in present circumstances for meditation or for

reading other than resolutions and legislation and the letters that I get from people. I get a very large fan mail. However, I took an interest in reading this report and I have read the papers on water pollution in Canada.
I wish simply to quote from the concluding paragraph because it supports my contention. As a matter of fact, it prompted me to introduce this motion this afternoon in the form in which I did introduce it. On page 359 of the report, I read this-it comes at the conclusion of a lengthy paper on water pollution in Canada:
Possibly the greatest present need is a better knowledge of pollution problems on the part of the taxpayer. So many demands are being made for increased expenditures in urban communities that sewage treatment gets little support in many areas.
In summary, pollution problems of major significance are already evident in Canada and will become more common and more severe as industrial and urban development increases. Hence, a more complete knowledge of present conditions coupled with prompt and effective remedial action, is essential for future national development and expansion.
I am confident that this effective remedial action cannot take place unless there is a coordinated approach to research and study followed by co-operation between governments and government agencies to give it effect. The first essential is knowledge based on research-an over-all knowledge of the situation as it exists in Canada. We have a great body of knowledge which is already available, or would be available if it were coordinated and presented to a central committee such as I suggest composed of persons representing the federal and provincial governments. Then we must have co-operation between governments and co-operation between the government agencies concerned. Following that we need a redrafting of legislation. It will mean a reallocation of responsibility for dealing with certain areas of this problem and also the education of the public to support the raising of the funds which will be necessary to meet the situation. It will mean taxes in municipal areas. It will mean, possibly, some particular taxation on a provincial basis and on a national basis. I believe this should be in the nature of taxation for a specific purpose, especially in the provinces; people in the provinces should know that there is a cent, or whatever it is, of their sales tax going to meet the pollution problems in their region. I think there would then be a better understanding of the problem. Anyway, there is room for education in this respect.
I wish to give other hon. members an opportunity to speak on this subject, but before ending my remarks let me say it cannot be overemphasized that damage to the natural
4, 1962	2505
Request Water Pollution Control Division order is frequently final-and it has been final in a good many instances in Canada. An exterminated species cannot be revived; a stand of virgin timber can never be replaced in its virgin form, and polluted waters can never be returned to their original purity. Even though attempts have been made to do so with the application of scientific principles and the expenditure of a good deal of money, it has not been possible to return rivers or streams to their original purity.
If we wish the mightiest river, the smallest freshet, to be other than a connecting link in a national disposal system of sewage and industrial waste, we must commence the battle for restoration immediately.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: should like to congratulate the leader of the New Democratic party in this house for having brought this resolution before us, and particularly for the colourful way in which he has presented his arguments this afternoon. My own remarks will be confined to the situation which exists in my own province of Manitoba.
I am sure all hon. members are aware of the fact that a large number of rivers empty into lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg. I believe they are also aware of the fact that the Assiniboine and Red rivers join right in the heart of Winnipeg. The Red river then flows northward and bisects my constituency. The residents of Winnipeg and of the province of Manitoba generally are keenly aware of the problem of water pollution. It is ironic that last year, because of the drought, there was very little water flowing through the river and the stench from the sewage which just sat there was something which it was difficult for the citizens of that metropolis to tolerate. This year there is a danger of the river flooding, so it seems we go from one extreme to the other; one year we have too little water in the river, and in another there is a danger of flooding. This, of course, is because of the fact that the prairie in that area is very flat and the river has at no time to make much of a decline before reaching its mouth in lake Winnipeg.
Another problem which contributes to water pollution is the fact that a great many of the cities through which these rivers flow have inadequate sewage disposal facilities. Indeed, in the city of Winnipeg itself my understanding is that the sewage disposal facilities are completely inadequate and out-dated and that the method of treatment of the sewage is not what it should be today. It is difficult to realize why a great many of these cities do not avail themselves of the opportunity of borrowing money for the acquisition of efficient sewage disposal units under the

Request Water Pollution Control Division program which is in effect through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I only hope as tar as my own area is concerned that the metropolitan corporation of the city of Winnipeg will study this proposal and take advantage of the money which can be obtained through that corporation in order to provide an adequate sewage disposal system for an area which is growing every day of the week.
Water pollution by sewage does not, of course, confine its effects to human beings as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Nevertheless, those who own property on the river banks north of the city of Winnipeg suffer from the results of this pollution. Those who are interested in athletics, in rowing or in swimming suffer from the effects of water pollution and, of course, in the province of Manitoba the fishing is damaged as a result of the pollution of our major lakes. The hon. member believes that a council such as he proposes could do a great deal to remedy this situation. I think that one of its major purposes would be to educate the people in these metropolitan areas, or in any area where water is being polluted as a result of inadequate sewage disposal arrangements or careless industrial plants.
A program of education would show the people what pollution is doing to our natural resources and would demonstrate what could be accomplished in the method of controlling this hazard. A first step in that educational program would be to educate the public to an acceptance of the fact that only through taxation of some form, only through money provided by the people, will this problem be controlled. It will be controlled only through the construction of adequate sewage facilities and the provision of adequate policing. Only by these methods and in this manner can the problem be controlled and that, Mr. Speaker, takes money, of course.
The downstream benefits that would accrue from the control of water pollution in Manitoba would be better fishing, better facilities for those who wish to engage in rowing, sailing and boating of all forms and, of course, a better environment in which ducks could breed on the waters of lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg which are famous duck shooting areas.
I strongly recommend to hon. members of the house that this resolution be given most serious consideration, because, as we all know, this is a growing problem about which very little is being done by municipal, provincial or federal authorities.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention a while ago to the remarks made by the hon. member

for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in support of his resolution concerning water pollution. They were brief but complete. I am not going to repeat to the house what he has just said, but I wish to support the resolution he has introduced, because I am aware of the problem that water pollution represents throughout Canada.
The problem is becoming more and more serious throughout the country, and we must deal with it. It has even become a crucial problem in the province of Quebec. In fact, in that province, out of a population of 4,628,378 people, according to the statistics for 1960, 2,380,000 people benefit from a sewer system, but only 97,500 of them benefit from a sewer system whose waste is treated so that it will not pollute the waters in which it is emptied.
The city of Montreal alone and its suburbs, where lives more than one third of the population of the province of Quebec, are surrounded by a magnificent system of rivers, including the St. Lawrence river, the lake St. Louis basin, the beautiful Back river and the Thousand Islands river. All these could be used for the enjoyment of the people of Montreal and the surrounding area. But because all the surrounding municipalities as well as the city of Montreal itself, empty their sewage in the various rivers I have just named, not to mention the different plants in and around Montreal which throw their waste into them, the people of Montreal and the surrounding area do not take advantage of these magnificent rivers as they should.
I notice that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages), in whose constituency these rivers run is in his seat at the moment. I know that he fully appreciates the fact that water pollution is a real problem in the metropolitan area, and more particularly in his constituency. If we did not have that problem, as I just said, the people of Montreal and of the surrounding area could take advantage of those wonderful rivers, and engage in sports such as fishing and swimming. But because of water pollution, there is a danger of spreading contagious viruses, and that is why the population of the metropolitan area cannot take advantage as they should of the wonderful surrounding rivers and streams.
The late Dr. C. A. Kirkland, former M.L.A. for Jacques Cartier, had dedicated himself to water pollution control in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the Montreal area. Until 1960, because he was in opposition, he could not exert as much influence as he

would have liked in the provincial legislature, but since 1960, as a member of the provincial cabinet, he co-operated with the government in setting up a body which is commissioned to fight water pollution and to inquire into effective ways of controlling it. Unfortunately, Dr. Kirkland passed away a year ago, but Mrs. Claire Kirkland-Casgrain who, in December last, was the first lady to be elected to the provincial legislature continues the campaign that her father had undertaken to solve the problem of water pollution.
I take pleasure, in the field of jurisdiction which is ours here, to associate myself with her and to support her fight against water pollution not only in the metropolitan area of Montreal but in the whole province of Quebec.
Therefore I support wholeheartedly the motion which was so well presented by the member for Kootenay West.
(Text):


Mr. McGee:: Before the hon. member resumes his seat may I put a question to him. Is the hon. member aware that in the province of Quebec loans approved or under consideration for approval under the sewage disposal legislation of the present government total nearly $15 million?
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the figures just mentioned by the hon. member.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, the motion submitted by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is an excellent one as governments at all levels are worried about the serious problem of water pollution which is a menace to public health. Indeed, millions of tons of refuse are thrown into our rivers, lakes and streams.
The federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has adopted a policy which is most advantageous for all Canadian municipalities which want to take advantage of it. As a matter of fact, C.M.H.C. subsidizes the building of sewage treatment plants and, according to the statistics we have, municipalities in the province of Quebec unfortunately are not availing themselves of the provisions of an act which would enable them to remedy the situation to a certain extent.
It is true that the federal government has some responsibilities in this field, but so have the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to speak of industrial refuse and of the oil slicks left by boats using our waterways. Since 1958, the
4, 1962	2507
Request Water Pollution Control Division federal government has been much stricter with regard to the enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, more particularly on the St. Lawrence river. An act of the Canadian parliament has been prohibiting such practice in Canadian waters for a long time, but, since 1958, this government has appointed a patrol ship on the St. Lawrence, which is based at Sorel and constantly watches this waterway in order to prevent ships from disregarding the law during the navigation season.
It is essential that the government continue to maintain an active supervision with regard to ships letting off oil, which causes water pollution, more particularly in the St. Lawrence river.
Mr. Speaker, another serious problem, over which the whole world is concerned, is pollution caused by atomic waste. This is what I read recently in a newspaper about that problem:
Radioactive nucleus move about and act, so to speak, as mobile contamination agents. Certain forms of cancer are already becoming apparent on the cells of plants growing in the Pacific, as a result of atomic water pollution. Knowing that the plankton can concentrate 10,000 times radioactive elements from atomic waste, and that currents can transport on very long distances this plankton, which is eaten by fishes and other animals sold later on for consumption purposes, the threat caused by the radioactive fallout and atomic waste cannot be under-estimated, even if they are enclosed in lead containers and dropped at great depths In the sea.
In order to substantiate the remarks I just made on the harmful effects of radioactive fallout, I should like to quote the statement made recently by an old scientist who has explored the deep sea and the stratosphere. I refer to Professor Piccard, who passed away recently and to whom special tribute must be paid for his essential experiments and his numerous services to the world of science. This is what he said:
The water of the globe can be affected by radioactive waste.
He said that the recent discovery of a living fish at the bottom of the sea, around the Marianas islands, which is 37,800 feet deep, points out to the existence of vertical currents going from the surface of the sea to its deepest parts.
We can therefore draw the conclusion that radioactive matters in the sea can contaminate the water even at the greatest depths. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Piccard was referring to the record breaking dive by the American lieutenant Walsh and his own son aboard the Trieste.
2508	HOUSE OF
Request Water Pollution Control Division
As a result of experiments, the divers were able to observe through a porthole about a hundred feet from the bottom of the sea, a foot long abyssal fish of which Professor Piccard said this:
That animal, and everything that lives around it, absorb the oxygen released in the water which is free from carbonic acid.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this waste could be carried to the bottom by sea currents and thus contaminate the ocean from top to bottom. I wonder if there is not at present within the United Nations an agency which could carry out that research work on a world-wide basis.
In fact, I believe there is a United Nations agency which looks after health questions. I wonder if such an agency could not consider the possibility of using the Antarctic as a huge cold storage for the world's radioactive waste.
In my opinion, that would be the best way of getting rid of those materials. Instead of throwing them into the ocean, the frozen regions of the Antarctic could be bombed and if the radioactive waste were buried 70 feet deep, it could be left there for over 30,000 years.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the United Nations should consider what steps should be taken to prevent the contamination of water by those radioactive materials. In my opinion, it is high time that such studies be carried out to protect the whole of humanity.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member has not included in his motion the millions of dollars damage caused every year to agriculture by air pollution. Surveys made in the Los Angeles area in the United States have indicated that air pollution also causes losses to agriculture of $8 million a year.
This pollution which causes injury to crops is due to ozone, that is poor oil combustion, the result being, for example, the black spots appearing on tobacco leaves.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should not get on to the subject of air pollution and take up the time of the house with something that is irrelevant, as there are other hon. members who would like to speak.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if I ran afield, it is because I wanted to point out to the house that the hon. member's motion should have included the suggestion to establish a committee to study the damages caused by air pollution.


I will now resume my seat so that other members might be able to express their views on this important subject.
I wanted to take this opportunity to commend the hon. member on his resolution.
(Text):


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to take one minute in which to express briefly my support of the resolution. This subject has been discussed over and over again in past sessions and I think the arguments both for and against have been very well publicized. I see no need to repeat what has been said on previous occasions or even what has been said here today. I think we are all more conscious than ever of the necessity to safeguard our resources and of the importance of safeguarding our water resources particularly as a health measure, the need of which is becoming more and more acute as we become more industrialized and as we tend to develop larger and larger communities.
As I see it, the operative section of this resolution is the consideration of the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division. Hon. members have pointed out that we have already recognized the problem of water pollution and that steps have been taken with respect to sewage control, sewage disposal and so on. One must assume that the purpose of setting up this particular division would be to develop a program and to carry it out more efficiently than can be done with the present agencies.
In my province we are not sufficiently industrialized to have any great problem of water pollution in our rivers, although we must take steps to safeguard against it in the future. However, we have a problem of water pollution along our coast. As the hon. member who last spoke pointed out, this is a serious problem for our province. It affects wildlife around our coast, particularly bird life.
It probably has some effect on the fisheries. I realize that the Department of Transport has a certain division that does something in this respect involving the working out of agreements with other countries, but in spite of this we do not seem to be coping with the problem very well. Every year there is more and more evidence of bird life being destroyed by oil dumped outside our territorial waters which drifts in toward the shore, or in some cases by oil that is dumped within our own coastal waters.

Perhaps the establishment of an agency-such as the resolution proposes would enable the government to develop another approach to the problem and possibly with more success than we have had in the past. I commend the hon. member for introducing this resolution. I think it deserves the support of all hon. members and I hope that the idea suggested in the resolution will be carried out not only with respect to our inland waters but also from the viewpoint of tackling the problem of the pollution of our coastal waters and even of the waters outside our territorial limits.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I should like to place on the record at this point what action has been taken by the government in an effort to come to grips with this problem and to meet its responsibilities in this field. Then I should like to say something later about the activities of some private members of this house who have made such an outstanding contribution in this field in which, as the hon. member for Kootenay West acknowledges, the factor of education of the public plays such an important role in dealing with the problem. These hon. members have made an outstanding contribution in this field and I think they should be entitled to have that contribution acknowledged.
The program of the present government, introduced specifically to find a solution to this problem and to assist municipalities directly in establishing sewage disposal plants, has been one of the most successful programs introduced by the government in the last few years. Inquiries involving preliminary survey, formal applications on hand plus loans actually approved and sewage disposal plants in works make an impressive total indeed. There are no fewer than 354 applications representing municipal requests, and the total dollar value involved in these projects amounts to $120,926,000. Other inquiries have come to the government in recent months where the estimated value is unknown or it is not possible to make a reasonable assessment; so that the figure could be considerably higher than the total dollar value I mentioned.
This represents an effective response to one of the serious problems that confront our country, particularly those sections of the country where industrial development is taking place at the present time. Surely it is an intelligent approach to the problem to attempt to learn from the mistakes which have had such ghastly consequences in more settled
4, 1962	2509
Request Water Pollution Control Division areas, and areas where industrial development has been in progress for a number of years.
This program, with its low interest, long term loans to the municipalities, and an additional forgiveness factor to encourage construction of these plants before a certain date, makes a great deal of sense from the point of view of an answer to the pollution problem. In addition it provides a stimulus to the economy and the undertaking of many thousands of jobs which flow from activities of this kind. From my inquiries of and discussions with municipal authorities, I can say that there is no doubt in anybody's mind that if there had not been this impetus and encouragement from the government in this field only a fraction of these projects would be under way at the present time.
I mentioned that there were certain hon. members who had a distinguished history in dealing with this problem of water pollution.
I should like to refer particularly to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Pratt) who since his earliest days, first as an alderman and later as mayor of the town of Dorval, made it his business to focus attention on this problem, to encourage public education with regard to the matter and to seek ways and means to find a solution to the problem which exists in his constituency and others in that neighbourhood.
Some hon. members may have seen a national film board short on this subject which was shown on the C.B.C. not too many months ago. I am sure those who did were as impressed as I was when the camera focused on an area littered with debris, garbage and sewage which, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, pointed out, a very few years ago had been a sandy beach where children frolicked and played in safety and without fear of pollution or ill health. This is a dramatic example of the deterioration that has taken place and the vital necessity for action to be taken. I should like to congratulate the national film board as well for its contribution to the education of the public to the fact that the solution of this problem is terribly expensive and that taxpayers in this country at all levels have to be prepared to face the fact that the ultimate and complete solution of the problem of water pollution is one of the most expensive prospects that faces this country.
I could not mention the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle without commenting on the significant role that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. McQuillan) played in his participation in the proceedings of the mines, forests and waters committee a few years ago. The report of that committee, one of the more sharply worded reports in the
2510	HOUSE OF
Request Water Pollution Control Division history of parliamentary committees, urged action by the government in this field. I think it is a credit to the government that action has been taken, though perhaps not surprising from a government headed by a man who as a private member gave special attention to this problem and introduced private members' bills in the house dealing with water pollution which focused public attention and concern on the problem.
The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) in his area of western Ontario has been a continuing supporter of finding remedies for the problem. We are fortunate in the province of Ontario in that our municipalities have come forward in a very encouraging way to participate in this program. The total value of applications in work and under consideration in the province of Ontario up to a very recent date was about $82 million. This represents an important contribution by approximately 151 communities in the province of Ontario.
This work is being followed up, of course, and I presume the hon. member for Kootenay West had in mind a co-operative body involving such organizations as the Ontario water resources commission; and that these commissions or establishments, by whatever name they may be known across the country, would co-ordinate their activities, benefit from each other's experiences and proceed to make an increasing assault on this problem. I would point out, and I think the hon. member himself mentioned as well, the contribution made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) in initiating the resources for tomorrow conference. The kind of consultation which I think the hon. member has envisaged in this resolution certainly took place at that conference and will continue to receive the attention of this government.
Finally, I believe this debate provides an opportunity for me to refer to the federal grant to the metropolitan Toronto conservation authority under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act totalling some $14 million. The effects that will flow, directly and indirectly from this, in the field of conservation, in reducing pollution and bringing our citizens into contact with the benefits of such conservation programs, will be tremendous and will increase the interest of these citizens in what, as I mentioned before, is one of the more expensive problems facing governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels in this country.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be rather neglectful of my duty if I did not, at this time, rise to support this resolution in principle which has been


brought to our attention by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I am going to confine my remarks to pollution of the great lakes and our inland waterways, which is a very important matter to the people who live in the part of Canada from which I come. I do not believe there is any part of Canada where pollution is a more serious problem than it is in the region lying along the shores of lake Ontario and lake Erie.
This pollution comes from three main sources. There is the pollution caused by the dumping of untreated sewage or partly treated sewage into our lakes and rivers. There is also the problem of industrial waste, and then there is the problem of the pollution of our waterways by vessels which pass through these waters. I should like, in the short space of time available, to emphasize the fact that the condition in our area has reached a point where it is beyond the ability of the municipalities to correct. 1 should like also to say that it is not only a question confronting Canada but it is also one confronting the United States. The Niagara river, which is in my riding, receives a tremendous amount of untreated sewage and industrial waste which comes partly from the United States and partly from Canada.
We all know that along the shores of lake Erie and lake Ontario, especially the southern area, of lake Ontario, this is an area that is polluted with algae. This algae is a kind of seaweed that thrives on sewage which has been dumped into our lakes and rivers, and has become a very important matter to the municipalities in that area. I wish to congratulate the hon. member from Kootenay West for bringing it to our attention. However, before resuming my seat, I should like to say that the question of pollution caused by vessels passing through the canals and rivers is becoming greater each day. More and more ships are passing through, and the oceangoing vessels are not too careful about how they dispose of their garbage or surplus oil. I am glad to know that this matter is being considered by the Department of Transport. I am pleased to note also that so many municipalities are taking advantage of the new legislation this government introduced a year ago making possible long term loans to build sewage disposal plants and trunk sewers. I do not want to talk this measure out as I believe there are other members who would like to say a word. I shall, therefore, conclude my remarks although I could speak for a much longer time.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on this resolution. Unfortunately, my

remarks will be brief, as there are only two minutes left before six o'clock.
I listened with attention, a while ago, to my colleague from Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) who, even though the problem of water pollution does not arise in his constituency, was kind enough to say a few words on that subject.
The constituency I have the honour of representing is surrounded by the Thousand Island river, the Back river, the lake of Two Mountains and the St. Lawrence river. It has a population of over 200,000 people who, unfortunately, cannot use its waterways for recreational purposes, for fishing or swimming, etc., because of pollution.
Last year, the federal government amended the National Housing Act in order to allow Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist municipalities in the development of sewage disposal plants.
At that time, in a speech I delivered on television, I was glad to speak only to the mayors of Laval constituency and I urged them to apply to central mortgage and housing to be able to build sewage disposal plants.
Fortunately, several towns and municipalities in my constituency took advantage of the provisions of this act and the town of Laval West is now carrying out a $3 million project. They obtained federal grants representing 25 per cent of construction costs, a loan for 75 per cent, to be paid back in 50 years at an interest rate of 5J per cent. In addition, they received a grant representing 25 per cent of interest charges.
In the province of Quebec, Dr. Provost has always advocated water pollution control. His efforts have constantly been supported by the
4, 1962	2511
Business of the House
mayor of St. Rose, Mr. Payette, who worked 20 years for this cause.
In my opinion, all these projects can be carried out under the new act passed a few years ago by the present government.
Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock. (Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: I wonder if I could inquire from whoever is leading the house at the moment, what the business will be for tomorrow? I am looking in the direction of the Minister of Forestry, and perhaps I should inquire from him what the business is likely to be for tomorrow and Friday as well?


Mr. Flemming (Royal):: The house leader did leave me a note, the contents of which he asked me to communicate to the house. It is that the No. 1 item will be interim supply-


Lionel Chevrier: That is the first item?


Hugh John Flemming: The first item, yes; No. 2 will be Bill No. C-38 and No. 3 will be supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked about Friday as well. Do I take it it will be a continuation of this? What is the business for Friday?


Hugh John Flemming: All I have is what I have given. I think this will be the order-


Lionel Chevrier: For tomorrow?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Thursday, April 5, 1962