1963-12-04

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
On Monday, July 8, 1963, as recorded on page 1968 of Hansard, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) made a commitment to some hon. members, and more particularly the member for Lapointe.
At that time I had asked the Secretary of State the following question on Bills C-83 and C-84: If the committee is ready to sit, and the Secretary of State can assure us that it will and sit before the bill is presented, then we will agree to the bill being read for the first time. The Secretary of State answered:
I would be quite prepared to give an undertaking that in some fashion or other this matter would be remitted to a committee so that the matters the hon. member wishes to raise could be raised, if that is satisfactory.
I wish to point out that it was to the member for Lapointe that the Secretary of State was speaking, when he said:
-so that the matters the hon. member wishes to raise could be raised.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) confirmed that promise, as can be seen on the same page of Hansard:
I would confirm the undertaking given by the house leader that we will have a committee set up suitable to the hon. member where these matters can be discussed.
Further on-and here the matter becomes clearcut-the Secretary of State said as recorded on the same page of Hansard:
Once these two bills are seen, if there is any demand from any quarter of the house that some of the matters in the bills or other matters related to them could usefully be reviewed by a committee, I will undertake to ask my colleagues to have this done, and I feel sure they would agree with me. In fact, I am quite prepared to commit the government to putting a motion on the order paper for a reference to a suitable standing committee of the house to consider these matters before we proceed with the legislation itself.
Mr. Speaker, I can give further proof of what I am saying by referring to Hansard of October 11, 1963, page 3469, left hand column. The Secretary of State said on that date:
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that I did make a very precise commitment and I intend to carry out that commitment if there is any insistence on the part of any hon. member that I do so. The commitment was to refer a specific matter-
Mr. Speaker, that specific matter was the frontiers of the Northwest Territories, as it will be seen in a moment.
I continue with my quotation:
The commitment was to refer a specific matter, namely the frontiers, to the consideration of the committee before we proceed with the bill.
Mr. Speaker, those were formal and definite commitments on the part of the Secretary of State and of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. And I think that at one time the Secretary of State mentioned that it was precisely the matter of northern frontiers that was referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters. Indeed, the Secretary of State stated, a little further:
But if the hon. member or any other hon. member wishes to insist that the matters raised in the debate, that is to say, the question of the frontiers of the territories, should be considered separately first by a committee, I will endeavour to consult with whoever raises objection, the hon. member for Lapointe or anyone else, and try to draft some kind of motion to refer the matter to some suitable committee and bring it forward for debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the committee was specifically set up to study that problem. Now, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), have violated the commitments-


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):: I think at this point I should raise a point of order. I have been listening attentively to find out what the hon. gentleman was raising as a question of privilege. It is evident now that he is complaining about something which took place in a committee, complaining that it did or did not do something. If that is his question of privilege, that is a matter for the committee itself.

Question of Privilege
I will tell him right now that if there is anything which I am supposed to have done or not to have done which concerns that committee or which the committee wishes to question, I shall be quite prepared to go before the committee and be questioned about it. But it is a rule of the house that the time of the house is not taken up with proceedings in a committee until the committee has made a report, and it seems to me it is altogether wrong for any member to attempt, in the guise of raising a question of privilege, to bring before the house a matter which is still before a committee.


An hon. Member:: It is not before a committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to speak, perhaps he would wait until I have finished. I believe it is proper to appeal a decision of the chairman of a committee, just as one can appeal a decision of the chairman of the committee of the whole. There is a procedure for doing that. It is a recognized procedure. But it is not a proper procedure to bring up as a question of privilege in the house anything which happens within a committee, and if we are to make any progress in the house this practice, if seems to me, will have to be curtailed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to complain at all about what happened in the committee, but since the commitments made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources were violated, I move, seconded by Mr. Caouette:
That this house direct the standing committee on mines, forests and waters to undertake the study of the frontiers of Northwest Territories and neighbouring provinces, in relation to Bills C-83 and C-84, in order to comply with undertakings by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege here. First of all, if this motion is in the nature of a substantive motion it requires notice, but I do not believe the question is that difficult. It is more in the nature of a grievance. I allowed the hon. member to speak at very considerable length. Although points of privilege should be stated as concisely as possible in order not to waste the time of the house, I allowed him to continue at some length in order to see whether he would move a motion.
I really do not have much trouble in resolving the point at issue. Only a few days ago I suggested to the house and I now say that a committee is bound by the order of

reference to it, and that the committee decides within its own confines questions of procedure and points of order. If there was a point of order which the hon. member wanted to raise in the committee he should have done so, and if he was not satisfied with the decision of the Chair at the time he could have appealed to the other members of that committee.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: But in order to help the house and the hon. member I have given some thought to this question, which fortunately I anticipated might arise. May I say that the so-called question of privilege raised today is in effect an appeal to the house from the ruling of the chairman on a proceeding in a standing committee, and I must say I question very seriously the regularity of this procedure at this time.
The first precedent in this regard arose in 1956, when the chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce reported that his ruling had been appealed in the committee and he submitted the question to the judgment of the house. This is recorded at page 6388 of Hansard of July 24, 1956. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin in part dealt with the question as follows:
I have to rule now that the appeal from the chairman's ruling should he settled in the committee on banking and commerce and not reported to this house.
This matter is referred to in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 241, citation 295, which reads in part as follows:
On July 24, 1956, an appeal was taken to the house from the standing committee on banking and commerce, and the Speaker ruled that the chairman's ruling should be settled in the committee and not reported to the house.
The second precedent in this regard is found on Wednesday, August 6, 1958, page 3141 of Hansard. Following the first precedent Mr. Speaker Michener stated among other things:

it must be stated that there is no known precedent wherein the Speaker of the house has acted either as arbitrator or as judge in connection with the regularity of any proceedings in any committee of the house.-I find, therefore, that it would not be practicable for the Speaker, nor would it be competent for him, to review a ruling upon a regularity of a proceeding in a standing committee. This decision, of course, does not interfere with or deprive the house of its jurisdiction over its standing committees and their reports.
On the matter of the jurisdiction of the committee I could follow this up with the following quotation from May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 655, under the heading, "Reporting of Bills to the House

Division
Before Their Consideration Has Been Concluded". I am giving this detail because I think it might be useful to all hon. members.
It is the duty of standing committees, as of all committees, to give the matters referred to them due and sufficient consideration. Accordingly, the chairman of a standing committee will not accept a motion that the committee do not proceed further with the consideration of a bill from a member who is not in charge of the bill, nor will he accept a motion for reporting a bill to the house before its consideration has been completed by the committee, or any other motion which conflicts with the obligations imposed on the committee by the house.
Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 520, also says:
Every committee on a public bill is bound to report thereon. The house alone has power to prevent its passage or to order its withdrawal.
Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 506, says:
Every bill referred to the committee must be reported.
And later:
It is the duty of every committee to report to the house the bill that has been committed to them-*
In this connection I might refer hon. members to standing order 109.
On the subject of an order of reference, an indication by a minister of the crown that something may be done in the committee is not a part of the order of reference.
On June 19, 1924, Mr. Speaker Lemieux stated, as found in Hansard, page 3389:
Under the rules and customs of British parliaments, standing committees are not administrative bodies and their power is limited by such orders or instructions as may be given the house.
For the reasons I have given I am of the opinion that there is no question of privilege involved, nor is there any point of order which would justify my interference with the proceedings of the committee in question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member for Lapointe has appealed. All those in favour of the sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas
have it.
28902-5-345
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
"The question before the house is an appeal from the ruling of the Chair which is as follows. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) having risen on a question of privilege, proposed a motion as follows:
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair decided, in effect, that the motion did not raise a prima facie question of privilege and stated that it appeared the said motion was in effect an appeal to the house from a decision of the chairman of a standing committee, and ruled there was no question of privilege involved nor any point of order which would justify the Chair's interference with the proceedings of the committee in question. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained?


Mr. Herridge:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nowlan:: Would the Speaker please put the question so we know where we are?


An hon. Member:: Call for those opposed.


Mr. Speaker:: I had called for those in favour, and if there are no other hon. members in favour I am about to call for those opposed.
And the result of the vote having been announced: Yeas, 106; nays, 106:


Mr. Speaker:: Since the decision has not been negatived, I declare my ruling sustained.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like an opportunity to declare that I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege regarding the mines, forests and waters committee. I do so because this is the first time it has come to my attention that the committee is meeting to study the matters which were referred to it.
At page 559 of Votes and Proceedings for November 15 last a motion appears, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which was carried, stating in effect that my name be substituted for that of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on that particular committee. So far to date I have received no notification that the committee is meeting. If a motion were to be moved on this matter I think it would be to the effect that the chairman of that committee be instructed to carry out his functions and notify all members of that committee of the times and places of meetings of the committee.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, certain matters were referred by this house, prior to the holding of committee sessions, to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. When the matters referred to it by this house were brought forward for discussion, the chairman of that committee ruled that those matters could not be considered because they were out of order; that they must be referred back to this house for approval before they could be raised. When the hon. member for Lapointe attempted to carry out the instructions of that committee you, Mr. Speaker, ruled him out of order.
My question of privilege is this. What does a member of the house do when the house

refers a matter to such a committee, which matter is then ruled out of order by the chairman on the ground that only this house can instruct the committee, and when we bring it up in this house Your Honour rules us out of order?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member seriously contends that he is raising a question of privilege. He is in effect discussing a matter which was up for discussion before a ruling was made on it. As that matter has now been decided I do not see any point of privilege.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege which the hon. member has just raised, surely it is of concern to this house if a commitment made by the government leader of the house with reference to certain legislation is not honoured. I am not a member of that committee and I do not know whether or not that commitment was honoured, but members on that committee do feel that there has been a breach of faith. I think the government has a responsibility to do something about this question and not hide behind some interpretation of the rules of the house. If the house in good faith accepted a minister's word and sent legislation to a committee for study, surely that committee ought to deal with that legislation in the terms outlined to the house by the minister responsible for making the commitment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when I interrupted the hon. member for Lapointe nearly an hour ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Woolliams:: Playing politics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Am I not to be heard after my word is questioned? I indicated, and the house has now sustained the decision, that matters within the committee shall be settled by that committee. I also offered to go before the committee to be questioned on any undertakings which I had given, about the committee, in the proper place. It seems to me that if the house had accepted that undertaking at that time we would have got on with the business of the house today.
I repeat the undertaking. I am most anxious that any undertaking I gave as house leader or in the name of the government shall be carried out, and I will be very happy at any convenient time to appear before the committee to be questioned about the exact nature of my undertaking. I give that to the house as my word. I am not a member of that committee. I had nothing whatever to do 28902-5-345J
Reports of Committees
with the proceedings which took place in the committee. However, I make the offer to appear before it and give any information I can which will assist the committee in any way in regard to this matter; and I hope that the undertaking I gave in good faith will be kept.


An hon. Member:: You had better tell the chairman.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the Secretary of State is simply stating that he will appear before the committee and answer their questions. The point is that he made a definite commitment, a commitment which is on the record. The chairman of the committee can overrule the Secretary of State when he does make an appearance. Surely this is a case for the Prime Minister to intervene and speak to the chairman of the committee.


Mr. Martineau:: May I just ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had a point of privilege raised and it has been decided. We have now had further discussion. I think we should get on with the business before the house.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we do not propose to give unanimous consent to this recommendation, because we feel it is wrong that any committee with 60 members should be able to proceed with a quorum of only 10.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-118, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (form and material of notes).
5408	HOUSE OF
Questions


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Cole (Chicoulimi):: Mr. Speaker, as is indicated in its contents, the object of this bill is to decree that bank-notes must not be incorrect or misleading. Now, the notes issued by the Bank of Canada are certainly incorrect and misleading because they bear the following mention:
Will pay to the bearer on demand.
Such words printed on Bank of Canada notes, which are legal tender, are misleading.
Instead of these words:
Will pay to the bearer on demand
I move that the words-
Legal currency
-be printed, because since 1940 our legal currency is no longer guaranteed by gold.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Winch: 1.	Is Canada co-operating with the special United States program for investigation of unidentified flying objects and, if so, is this entitled "Project Magnet"?
2.	Is "Project Magnet" an unpublicized worldwide operation, using specially equipped, super constellations, non-uniformed pilots and civilian scientists?
3.	Was the late Wilbert B. Smith, a government scientist, the head of the Canadian section of the U.F.O. research operation?
4.	Is any data available from "Project Magnet" to the general public?


Mr. Dupuis:: 1. The R.C.A.F. co-operates with the United States in the investigation of reports of unidentified flying objects as in other matters of mutual interest, but not as part of a special program. The United States program known as "Project Magnet" is not directed to the investigation of unidentified flying objects.
2.	"Project Magnet" is a program conducted by the naval oceanographic office of the U.S. navy concerned with the compilation of geomagnetic data covering all the oceans of the world. The data are obtained in survey flights of U.S. navy aircraft carrying civilian scientists. Information concerning this program has been freely available for some years to interested scientists.
3.	Between December, 1950 and August, 1954 a small program of investigation in the field of geo-magnetics was carried out by the


then telecommunications division of the Department of Transport with a view to obtaining, if possible, some physical information or facts which might help to explain the phenomenon which was generally referred to as unidentified flying objects. Mr. W. B. Smith was the engineer in charge of this program.
4.	It is understood that data obtained in "Project Magnet", in the form of geo-magnetic charts, is available upon application to the naval oceanographic office of the U.S. navy.


C.B.C. EXPENDITURES FOR CANADIAN PERFORMERS
Mr. Mariineau: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expanded, in the course of the current fiscal year, the proportion of its budget spent in Canada on Canadian performers?
2.	What proportion of its budget is spent for this purpose?
3.	Have any measures been taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, of the current year, to increase the Canadian content of programs and, if so, what are these measures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The corporation does not assign on a proportionate basis a specified amount of its over-all program budget to be spent on Canadian performers. It prefers to allow greater flexibility to meet the variation in program needs and availabilities. Therefore it is not possible to give a categorical yes or no answer to the question. However, it can be said that, as the present winter program schedule gets underway, the indications are for an expansion in the over-all amount paid to Canadian performers.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	Measures have been taken by increasing the weekly amount of television network programming thereby opening up more opportunities for Canadian performers in C.B.C. produced programs, as well as those produced by other Canadian sources for the C.B.C. television network. It should be noted that the C.B.C. French and English networks carry a considerably higher percentage of Canadian content programs than the 55 per cent required by the B.B.G. For the year ending October 12, 1963, the English t.v. network carried 63 per cent Canadian, 6 per cent commonwealth, 31 per cent foreign and the French t.v. network carried 62 per cent Canadian, 15 per cent commonwealth, and 23 per cent foreign, programming.


FILM BOARD PRODUCTION &quot;FIELDS OF SACRIFICE&quot;
Mr. Mafheson: 1.	What is the nature and character of the national film board production "Fields of Sacrifice" and, why was it produced?
2.	Who were the persons principally responsible for its production and, what were their qualifications?

3.	What actual battle scenes are shown and, what areas are revisited in modern technicolour?
4.	How can the Canadian public see this film and, when, and how will it be available for distribution to interested groups?
Answer: 1. The national film board production "Fields of Sacrifice" or "Champs d'hon-neur" is made up of a 40 minute film in English and in French and a 20 minute version in English and in French. It is in colour except for flash-back sequences. It was made in two lengths in order to achieve the widest distribution.
This production was commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs to recall the courage and sacrifice of Canadian servicemen during the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars and to show Canadians, particularly the next of kin of those who died, how the memory of Canada's war dead is honoured and cherished in the countries where they fell. It is also designed to give renewed and vital meaning to the spirit of remembrance to the comrades of the war dead, to their next of kin and to those who were too young to know them at all.
2.	Executive producer, Peter Jones; producer, director, writer, Donald Brittain; director of photography, Eugene Boyko; film editor, Rex Tasker; music composed by Eldon Rathburn; editor of sound effects, Victor Merrill; rerecording, Ron Alexander, Roger Lamoureux; French production, Marcel Martin, Edouard Davidovici; author of French text, Gilles Henault; narration, Douglas Rain, Christian Delmas.
3.	Battle scenes:	Normandy invasion,
Dieppe, Sicily, Ortona, Dutch canals, Ypres, various unidentifiable photographs of world war I action on the western front.
Areas revisited: Normandy beaches, Normandy villages inland including Beny-sur-Mer and Bayeux, Hong Kong, Dieppe, Londonderry, Boxstead airfield, Reichswald forest, Runnymede, Agira, Cassino, Ortona, Bergen-op-Zoom, Groesbeek, Ypres, Mons, Arras, Armentieres, Poperinghe, various cemeteries in western front area including Beaumont Hamel, Quesnel, Bourlon wood, Dury, Sanctuary wood, Passchendaele, Cour-celette, St. Julien, Vimy Ridge. Also German cemetery at Langemarck.
4.	"Fields of Sacrifice" and "Champs d'hon-neur" are being distributed theatrically through Columbia Pictures of Canada Limited, and are available to every theatre in Canada. Non-theatrical release will commence July 1, 1964. The films will then be available to any individual or group across Canada through national film board sources, film councils, public libraries, etc.
Questions



*BICULTURALISM COMMISSION


Mr. Herridge: Has the government received any complaints from any organization or persons with respect to its failure to appoint any veterans with overseas service to the membership of the royal commission on biculturalism and, if so, what were the nature of these representations, and the government's replies?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is no.



* SPRUCEDALE, ONT., POSTMASTER

Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has the postmaster been appointed at Spruce-dale, Ontario, and, if so, what is his name and address?
2.	What other persons applied for this position?
3.	From whom were recommendations for this appointment solicited by the Postmaster General?
4.	Which of the applicants had service in the armed forces?


Mr. McWilliam:: 1. Yes, Mr. William H. Kirkpatrick, Sprucedale, Ontario.
2.	Miss Rose Jennie Plupek, Mr. William Ewart Pearce, Mr. Robert Soper, Mr. Henry Leon Deschamps.
3.	District director of postal service, North Bay, and Gerald M. Taylor.
4.	Henry Leon Deschamps served overseas but he is a resident of Jarlsberg, therefore not eligible for appointment. Robert Soper served in Canada only, therefore not entitled to the veterans' preference.



CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 63-588

Mr. Pritiie: 1.	Who is the winner of civil service competition No. 63-588?
2.	Has he taken on any other tasks as yet?
3.	What has been his experience in the field of public health?
4.	Did he graduate or take any training at a public health course?
5.	What is his age, place of birth, school, and year of graduation from professional school?
6.	Is he a veteran?
7.	How many other persons applied in this competition and qualified for it?
8.	How many of the qualified applicants were veterans?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answers by the civil service commission:
1.	The first ranking candidate in civil service competition 63-588 is Dr. Ralph Aubrey Connor.
2.	Dr. Ralph Aubrey Connor has been appointed to, and is performing the duties of the position of chief of dental health division, Department of National Health and Welfare.
3.	The experience of Dr. R. A. Connor in the field of public health, and as related to the duties of the position which he now occupies include:

Questions
(a) December 1946 to July 1948, dental officer with the department of health, Guelph, Ontario, (b) June 1949 to August 1956, director dental public health, Lincoln county, (c) November 1956 to October 1958, regional director, Lincoln, Wentworth and Brant county health units, (d) November 1958 to October 1963, director, dental services, province of Manitoba, (e) Dr. Connor has been a part time lecturer in public health dentistry at the University of Manitoba.
4.	Dr. R. A. Connor received his diploma in dental public health from the University of Toronto in 1949.
5.	Dr. Connor is 56 years old, was born in Thornbury, Ontario; attended the University of Toronto and graduated with doctor of dental surgery in 1933, doctor in dental public health in 1949.
6.	Dr. Connor is entitled to the veterans preference under the terms of the Civil Service Act.
7.	Of the 28 persons who applied in this competition only one other person qualified in it.
8.	Only one of the qualified applicants is entitled to the veterans preference provided for in the Civil Service Act.



AIR MAIL SERVICE, QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

Mr. Howard: With respect to the 14 complaints received regarding mail that was marked or posted for "Air Mail" to the Queen Charlotte islands but which reached its destination, by boat mail what was, in each case (a) the name and address of the complainant (b) the date the complaint was made (c) the reason for the error, and (d) the remedial action taken?


Mr. Denis:: Detailed information regarding complaints received prior to November 1, 1962, is not available. Files on cases where investigation is completed are kept for a period of one year only.
It was initially reported that 14 complaints were received. Subsequent inquiries established that 12 complaints were submitted. Six complaints have been received since November 1, 1962.
1.	(a) Mrs. E. J. Arnold, 2066 West 3rd Avenue, Vancouver 9, B.C.; (b) November 6, 1962; (c) uncertainty as to whether a flight would operate, therefore the item was despatched by steamer; (d) no action taken.
2.	(a) Mrs. G. Cotter, Department of Transport, Sandspit, B.C.; (b) November 29, 1962; (c) human error; (d) personnel instructed to exercise greater care.
3.	(a) M. Lacusta, Box 37, Queen Charlotte, B.C.; (b) January 21, 1963; (c) human error; (d) personnel instructed to exercise greater care.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
4.	(a) Masset Auto Marine, Masset, B.C.; (b) March 1, 1963; (c) human error; (d) personnel instructed to exercise greater care.
5.	(a) MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited, Sandspit, B.C.; (b) September 13, 1963; (c) human error; (d) personnel instructed to exercise greater care.
6.	(a) Mrs. D. O. Johnson, Juskatla via
Sandspit, B.C.;	(b) October 17, 1963; (c)
investigation not yet completed; (d) investigation not yet completed.



* PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are there any regulations concerning expenditures by life insurance companies on advertising or on promotional campaigns of various kinds and, if so, what are such regulations?
2.	Are the expenditures by life insurance companies on campaigns in opposition to the proposed Canada pension plan considered legitimate advertising expenditures and, if so, by what authority?
3.	Are the expenditures by life insurance companies on campaigns in opposition to the proposed Canada pension plan allowed as deductible for corporation income tax purposes and, if so, what is the estimated amount of the cost to the public treasury during the current year?


Mr. Benson:: 1. No.
2.	There is no legislation in Canada controlling the amount insurance companies may spend on advertising.
3.	Expenses of a life insurance company are charged to the insurance funds. Taxable income is determined mainly by amounts transferred from these funds to the shareholders fund, the amounts so transferred being at the discretion of the directors within the limitations prescribed by the insurance acts, and subject to the maintenance of reserves and surplus margins necessary for the protection of policyholders. It is impossible to determine whether the amounts that may be so transferred would be affected by expenses that may have been incurred of the type described. In this connection I refer the hon. member to section 30 of the Income Tax Act.



* IMMIGRATION OFFICES, FRANCE AND ENGLAND

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the government maintain immigration offices in France and, if so (a) what is the annual cost of these offices (b) how many persons are attached to these offices (c) what is the total of their ssl3ri6S?
2.	(a) How many immigration offices does the government maintain in England (b) what is the annual cost of these offices (c) how many persons are attached to these offices (d) what is the total of their salaries?


Mr. Munro:: 1. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration maintains one office in France and this is located in Paris. There are

plans at the moment for the opening of two new immigration offices at Lyon and Bordeaux, contingent upon satisfactory arrangements being worked out with the appropriate authorities; (a) $182,079 for fiscal year 1962-63; (b) 27; (c) $100,512 per annum.
2.	(a) The government maintains four offices in England and these are located in Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and London; (b) $480,731 for fiscal year 1962-63; (c) 77; (d) $286,274 per annum.
[Text!



RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSION ON PATENTS, ETC.

Mr. Brewin: 1.	Have any of the recommendations of the report on industrial designs of the royal commission on patents, copyright, trademarks and industrial designs, dated the 1st day of June, 1958, been carried out and, if so, which recommendations?
2.	Does the government intend to implement any of the recommendations of the said report which have not yet been implemented?
3.	Does the government propose to bring in legislation amending or replacing the Industrial Design and Union Label Act, c.150, R.S.C. 1952, which is substantially the same as that passed in 1861?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. No.
2 and 3. This is a question of government policy which it is not usual to announce in response to questions on the order paper.
^CHANGES IN SECURITY PROCEDURES


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Do the changes in procedures with respect to security, announced by the Prime Minister on October 25, 1963, apply to Canadians generally as well as to government employees and service personnel and, if so, in what way do the new procedures apply to Canadians generally?
2.	Have any corresponding changes been made with respect to security investigations on university campuses and, if so (a) what are the details of such changes (b) what courses are open to students or professors who are investigated (c) have university organizations (student or teacher) been advised of any new procedures applicable to university campuses?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it will take several minutes to read this answer into the record. I would therefore ask permission of the house to table the answer and have it printed in Hansard today.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	and 2(a). The procedures announced on October 25 were designed to apply to employees of the Canadian government. They may also be intended, with modification if necessary, to apply to persons involved in
Questions
federal government contracts which have a security aspect. They are designed solely for a situation in which a person, by reason of employment or contract, may have access to classified information. They cannot therefore, have application to Canadians generally, whether within a university or not, since the problem of access to classified information does not arise.
2.	(b) Students or professors are not investigated. If they are applicants for employment in the public service in positions in which access to classified information is involved, security screening is the same as for any other applicant. A student or a professor could conceivably become involved in an investigation into a case of possible subversion or espionage. The ordinary processes and provisions of the law would apply if prosecution developed in any such case.
2.	(c) The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., have met representatives of the C.A.U.T. and the N.F.C.U.S. in recent months to discuss the problem of ensuring that the responsibilities of the R.C.M.P. with regard to security do not conflict with freedom of thought and discussion on university campuses. Both the government and the R.C.M.P. as the responsible agency are fully alive to the importance of ensuring that no such conflict arises and renewed care is being taken to provide against it. Both the C.A.U.T. and N.F.C.U.S. have been advised that there is not now and will not be any general surveillance of university campuses.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What is the name and salary of each employee of the Post Office Department in each of the towns and villages located within the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
2.	How many employees of the Post Office Department in Compton-Frontenac have been dismissed during the past two years and what was the reason in each case?
3.	How many promotions, transfers and salary increases were granted to employees of the Post Office Department in Compton-Frontenac during the past two years?
4.	How many persons are under contract for rural mail delivery in Compton-Frontenac and what is the name, salary and length of contract of each?
5.	During the past two years, what changes were made with regard to the people delivering the mail?
6.	What expenditures did the Post Office Department incur in Compton-Frontenac during each of the past five years?
7.	How many requests for route changes in the constituency has the department received during the past three years and (a) what is the location of each (b) what were the reasons given (c) how many requests were granted (d) how many were refused (e) by how much did the expenses increase in each case?

Questions


Azellus Denis: This information is not readily available. Its compilation would necessitate a review of a great number of records and require undue labour and expense.



RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICE, WABUSH, NFLD.

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What Canadian radio or television broadcasting is available to residents of Wabush, Newfoundland?
2.	Has either the Department of Transport or the B.B.G. entertained any applications for licenses from individuals or organizations seeking to establish such facilities in Wabush and, if so, what are the details, and what has followed from such applications?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. Wabush, Newfoundland, is outside of what is considered to be the normal service area of any Canadian sound or television broadcasting station.
2. See reply to part 1 of question No. 1,695 which was answered on November 27 (page 5154 Hansard). The application is now being dealt with by the Department of Transport for reference to the board of broadcast governors.



C.B.C. PROGRAMS RESPECTING &quot;RENEGADE IN POWER&quot;

Mr. Gundlock: 1.	How many interviews, reviews and panel shows have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation organized in which the program material relates to Peter Newman's book "Renegade in Power", on (a) television stations (b) television networks (c) radio stations (d) radio networks?
2.	With respect to each category of program, how much in fees has been paid or is owing to (a) Peter Newman (b) other participants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. (a) five; (b)		three;	(c) five;	(d) one,
as detailed	below:			
City of	T.V.	Kadio	origin	station	Network station Network	Montreal	_	1	1	-Ottawa	2	2	1	-Toronto	-	-	2	1Winnipeg	1	-	1	-Vancouver	2	-	-	5	3	5	1
2. It has not been customary to require the corporation to give information as it could affect the corporation in the competitive business in which it is engaged.



HOUSING CONDITIONS OF ESKIMOS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have surveys been made of housing conditions available to the Eskimos of Canada's north and, if so, what percentage of the Eskimos are living in houses considered to be substandard and detrimental to the health of the occupants?
[Mr. Latulippe.l
2.	Has any federal government department made plans for an aggressive program of building new housing accommodation for Eskimos designed to check the serious health hazards caused by inadequate housing?


Mr. Laing:: 1. Yes. As of March 31, 1963, it is estimated that about 2,000 Eskimo families were in need of better housing. The total Eskimo population is estimated at 12,000.
2. Yes, (a) through departmental initiative, since 1959, some 400 houses have been sold to Eskimos, and some 300 provided to other Eskimo families who are unable to pay for such houses; (b) a continuing program to improve designs and techniques of construction has cut costs and provided Eskimos with better houses for less money; (c) water and sewer services have been improved as part of a continuing program to provide adequate sanitary facilities.



HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS


Mr. Scoil: 1.	Did the Prime Minister receive a letter, dated November 2, 1963, from the clerk of the township of Scarborough requesting the Prime Minister's help in arranging an appointment with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to discuss the matter of hospital construction grants?
2.	Has the said meeting been arranged and, if so, when will it take place?
3.	If the meeting has already taken place, what was the nature of the government's response to the representations of the representatives of the township of Scarborough?


Mr. Pearson:: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, December 18, 1963.
3.	Not applicable.



EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE

Mr. Scott: 1.	Is the government presently reviewing its export finance and insurance machinery and, if so, along what lines is the review being conducted?
2.	Have there been requests that the provisions of the export credits insurance corporation be applied to transactions under $2,000,000 and, if so (a) how many such requests have there been (b) what products were covered (c) who made the requests, and (d) what was the nature of the government's replies?
3.	What amount of export insurance was handled by private insurance companies in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 to date, and what ratio does this bear to export insurance handled by the export credits insurance corporation?
4.	Has the government given consideration to providing export credit insurance to exports to the U.S.A. and, if so, what was the nature of such considerations?
Answer: 1. Export Credits Insurance Corporation continually reviews its export finance and insurance machinery. This is also reviewed by interdepartmental committees and ministers are kept informed of any changes which might be required.

2. (i) Insurance, (a) Requests are received daily and policies issued daily. See list below of policies in force at September 30, 1962, classified by annual export volume.
	No. of	
Export volume	Policies	
grouping	current	AmountUp to $ 25,000	90	$ 1,472,369$ 25,001 to $ 100,000	198	$ 12,001,408$100,001 to $ 250,000	61	$ 10,665,919$250,001 to $1,000,000	49	$ 26,365,442Over to $1,000,000	32	$103,928,334(b)	See list below for products covered. Agricultural, vegetable products, animal and animal products, fibres, textiles and products, wood, wood products and paper, iron and products, non-ferrous metals and products, non-metallic minerals and products, chemicals and allied products, miscellaneous commodities; (c) This is confidential between E.C.I.C. and the exporter; (d) Answered by (a).
(ii) Financing, (a) approximately 12 requests for financing of amounts under $2 million over the past three years; (b) the products involved were communications equipment, transmission line equipment, small boats and vessels, pulp and paper machinery, road maintenance machinery, railway track maintenance equipment; (c) confidential information; (d) requests turned down because applications did not meet criteria for financing.
3.	Export Credits Insurance Corporation insures both the political and credit risks on sales to all countries. Private insurance companies insure only the credit risk on sales in Canada and the U.S. and not overseas. The volume of such sales is not available.
4.	The corporation has insured sales to the U.S. where insurance was not available from private insurance companies and the buyers met the normal criteria of credit worthiness.



MERCY FLIGHTS FROM PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the R.C.A.F. discontinued mercy flights for seriously ill Prince Edward Island patients requiring hospitalization on the mainland?
2.	If so, what reasons prompted such a decision?
3.	Did the Department of National Defence approach a private air line company to take over such a service?
4.	Is such a company now operating such a service?
5.	Is it based in Prince Edward Island?
Answer: 1. No. As in the past, R.C.A.F. mercy flights have been authorized in accordance with normal policy, namely that flights necessary to save life are carried out when no suitable alternate means of transportation is readily available.
2. Not applicable.
Questions
3.	No.
4.	Atlantic Central Airlines has one aircraft suitable for mercy flights and this company so informed the provinces in March 1963. The provinces, in so far as is known, although aware of R.C.A.F. policy, did not use this air line but continued to refer all cases to R.C.A.F. Since October 1963 when maritime air command headquarters became aware of this air lines' capability, provincial authorities have been requested to investigate use of air lines aircraft prior to requesting R.C.A.F. airlift.
5.	No. The air line is based at Moncton, N.B. This location is closer to P.E.I. than Greenwood, where R.C.A.F. aircraft, which are used on mercy flights, are based.



COMMON CARRIER PIPE LINES

Mr. Scott: 1.	Is the government conducting any research into the possibilities of developing common-carrier pipe lines which would provide an economic means of moving products over great distances and, if so (a) what is the nature and extent of such research (b) how much is being spent upon it, and (c) what is the nature and extent of the studies being made?
2.	To what extent and, in what way, are such projects co-ordinated with provincial research programs in this field?
Answer: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.



FRASERVIEW HOUSING PROJECT, B.C.

Mr. Scoff: 1.	Has the government received representations from the Fraserview (veterans) home owners and tenants association of British Columbia concerning their dispute with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with reference to rental increases and terms upon which they are entitled to buy their home?
2.	What reply has been given to the association?
3.	Have the rents in the project been raised, by what amount, and for what reason?
4.	What are the terms of sale being offered to tenants of these houses?
5.	What was the original cost of the project, how was it financed, and at what rate of interest?
6.	What is the total amount of rents received since the project was commenced?
7.	Have the rents covered depreciation and other costs, and what is the present undepreciated figure on the corporation's books?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	The association has been advised that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been requested to retain the services of an independent accredited appraiser to appraise each type of house in the Fraserview project in order to ensure that the sale prices and rental rates established by the corporation do not exceed their fair market values.
3.	Proposed rental adjustments have been deferred pending the report of the appraiser referred to in 2, above.

Questions
4.	The terms of sale are 5 per cent down payment with the corporation taking back a mortgage amortized over 25 years at the current N.H.A. interest rate.
5.	The original cost of the project was $11,340,452. It was financed under section 37 of the National Housing Act, at a borrowing rate of 2 per cent per annum amortized over a 40 year period.
6.	It is not possible to provide the information requested in this part because the accounting has been on an over-all branch basis and not on a project basis, nor is it possible to recreate the accounting on a project basis because records have been destroyed from time to time in accordance with the policy relating to such matters.
7.	The present rents are insufficient to cover depreciation and other costs. As at December 31, 1962, the undepreciated capital cost of the unsold houses was $7,349,320.


Azellus Denis: Truro	$ 2.00	per	hourNew Glasgow	2.40	per	hourSydney	.15	per	itemGlace Bay	2.00	per	hourKentville	.13	per	item*Digby	-	Amherst	2.00	per	hourFredericton	.10	per	itemMoncton	.09 i	per	itemBathurst	.12	per	itemCharlottetown	.10i	per	itemSummerside	.10	per	item
*There is no parcel post delivery service in Digby.
**Under inquiry.



CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS IN BOTH LANGUAGES

Mr. Boutin: 1.	Are the questions asked applicants in examinations held by the civil service commission, in both languages?
2.	Can the candidate write his examination in whatever language he wishes and, if not, why is one language compulsory rather than the other?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission:
1.	Yes.
2.	Except for language examinations, candidates may write any examination in either English or French.



MAIL CONTRACT, SALT SPRINGS, N.S.

Mr. MacEwan: Have tenders been called for a mail contract for R.R. 3, Salt Springs, Pictou county, N.S., and, if so, (a) what were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of their tenders; (b) to whom will the contract be awarded?


Azellus Denis: Yes. (a) George Martin MacDonald, $2,100; C. E. Wilson, $2,180; John A. MacLeod, $2,236; Austin N. Roblee, $2,340. (b) Decision pending.



PARCEL POST CONTRACTORS, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Coales: 

MAIL CONTRACT, ST. ZACHARIE DE DORCHESTER, QUE.

Mr. Eouiin: With reference to the contract for the transportation of mail on rural route No. 3, from St. Zacharie de Dorchester, awarded to Mr. Wilfrid Boulanger (a) what was the amount of the previous contract (b) what is the amount of the present contract (c) were other tenders submitted and what was the amount of each such other tender?


Azellus Denis: (a) $2,500; (b) $2,500; (c) No, Mr. Boulanger's previous contract, which expired on September 30, 1963, was renewed for a further term of four years from October 1, 1963. Therefore, tenders were not invited.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE

Mr. Langlois: Does the government intend to create a royal commission on agriculture?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Since this is a question of government policy, any announcement would be made in the usual manner.



MAIL CONTRACT, LEVIS-RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE.

Mr. Caoueiie: Has a contract been awarded recently for the transportation of mail between Levis and Riviere du Loup and, if so (a) when were tenders let (b) what was the closing date for these tenders (c) when were the tenders opened (d) how many tenders were received (e) what was the amount of each tender (f) to whom was the contract awarded and what was the amount of this tender?


Azellus Denis: No, but tenders have been received.
(a)	October 21, 1963.
(b)	November 15, 1963.
Questions
(c>
November 15, 1963.
(d)	Fifteen.
(e)	Adeodat Cliche, $23,988; Robert Blouin, $25,223; Georges Normand, $27,986; Paul Aime Pouliot, $30,952; Dumont Express Ltee (R. Vachon), $33,750; Jean-Marc Couture, $34,446; Rolland Langlais, $36,000; Georges Normand, $36,600; Jean-Baptiste Carrier, $36,960; Federal Delivery Inc. (Roland Guertin), $37,440; Transport d'Anjou Inc. (Claude D'Anjou), $41,143; Joseph Albert, $41,994; Joseph Beaulieu, $49,960; Jean-Paul Corriveau, $51,000; Fournier Express (Fernand Fournier), $57,500.
(f)	Decision pending.



PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, ETC.

Mr. Caoueiie: During each of the past five years, what was the total and value of (a) consumer goods and services produced in Canada (b) capital utilized (c) gross capital formation (d) imports of goods and services (e) goods and services consumed (f) capital depreciation (g) exports of goods and services (h) surplus or deficits for each of the above items?
[Translation] Mr. Pepin:
(a)	Consumer goods and services produced in Canada
(b)	Capital utilized
(c)	Gross capital formation:
Formation of companies' fixed capital Formation of governments' fixed capital
Value of material stock variation Total
(d)	Imports of goods and services
(e)	Consumption of goods and services
(f)	Capital depreciation, i.e. provision for
capital consumption and various reevaluation.
(g)	Exports of goods and services
(h)	Surplus or deficits for each of the
above items
Gross national product:
Note: (1) An estimate of item (e) can be obtained by subtracting item (c) from gross national product; to get an idea of consumption in Canada, one must also subtract item (g) from gross national product. (2) No figure is available concerning the production of consumer goods and services in Canada. Consumer spending on goods and services is as follows:
1958	1959	1960	1961	1962
	(millions of dollars)			
	Not	available		
	Not	available		
6,975	6,894	6,692	6,635	6,9541,389	1,523	1,570	1,537	1,784- 322	357	361	-144	5658,042	8,774	8,623	8,028	9,3037,423	8,131	8,172	8,542	9,033Not available-see	below	3,899	4,204	4,459	4,539	4,7556,340	6,683	7,008	7,631	8,224
Not available except for exports (g) less imports (d)
32,894	34,915	36,254	37,421	40,40121,245	22,591	23,512	24,486	25,749
Questions



SALES ABROAD BY CHEMICAL COMPANIES

Mr. Scoil: 1.	Has the government's attention been drawn to the loss of export business suffered by Canadian subsidiaries of United States chemical companies as alleged in recent newspaper reports on the grounds that the Canadian subsidiaries are not permitted to sell products abroad?
2.	If so, has the government any knowledge of how widespread are such restrictions and what action is the government taking to deal with the matter?
Answer: 1. The reports referred to have been drawn to attention.
2. The Canadian chemical industry exports material worth approximately $250 million per year or an average of 16 per cent of production. More than half of this total is attributed to subsidiaries of foreign firms.
The government encourages subsidiaries of foreign companies to export from Canada. Many of these subsidiaries participate in the department's trade fairs and trade missions brograms. Market studies have been conducted on their behalf and trade opportunities have been discovered for them. Their response to this assistance has resulted in expansion of exports.



ESKIMO CO-OPERATIVES

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people are there working in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the promotion of co-operatives among Eskimos and what areas do they cover?
2.	How many Eskimo co-operatives have been organized and what is the location of each?
3.	How much business do these co-operatives do according to the reports received by the department?
4.	What plans do the department have for increasing the staff working on the promotion of Eskimo co-operatives?


Arthur Laing: 1. There are at present four people engaged in the promotion of co-operatives among Eskimos. Two additional positions are vacant at this time, one of which will be filled in early December, 1963; the other as soon as a suitable candidate can be found. The co-operative development offices cover the Northwest Territories and Arctic Quebec.
2. The following 18 Eskimo co-operative organizations have been established with the help of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources:
West Baffin Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Cape Dorset, N.W.T.; George River Eskimo Fishermen's Co-operative, George River, P.Q.; Kikitaoyak Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Port Burwell, N.W.T.; Coppermine Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Coppermine, N.W.T.; Resolute Bay Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Resolute Bay,

N.W.T.; Grise Fiord Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Grise Fiord, N.W.T.; Holman Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Holman, N.W.T.; Fort Chimo Co-operative Association, Fort Chimo, Quebec; Ekaloktotiak Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Cambridge Bay, N.W.T.; Great Whale River Co-operative Association, Great Whale River, P.Q.; Ikaluit Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; Povungnituk Co-operative Society, Povungnituk, Quebec; Sisi Cooperative Ltd., Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; Issatik Eskimo Co-operative Ltd., Whale Cove, N.W.T.; Innuit Co-operative Ltd., Inuvik, N.W.T.; Aklavik Fur Garment Co-operative Ltd., Aklavik, N.W.T.; Aklavik Credit Union, Study Group, Aklavik, N.W.T.; Igloolik Cooperative Ltd., Igloolik, N.W.T.
3.	Because of the different closing dates of the fiscal years for the various co-operatives, it is not posible to give definite turnover figures for any given year. It is estimated that during the fiscal year 1961-62, sales of nine co-operatives in existence at that time amounted to $360,000.
Business turnover for 1962-63 is estimated at $750,000. More definite figures are not available.
4.	The department proposes to seek authority to employ one additional co-operative development officer in 1964-65.



ESKIMO LOAN FUND

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money is there in the Eskimo loan fund?
2.	How much money has been loaned to Eskimo communities from this fund to help them establish co-operatives?
3.	How many loans have been made and for what periods of time?
4.	At what rates were these loans made?
5.	How much of the money loaned has been repaid?


Arthur Laing: 1. $475,000.
2.	$274,000.
3.	122. A maximum period of five years for individuals and ten years for co-operatives.
4.	Five per cent per annum.
5.	$60,253.



INFANT MORTALITY RATE

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the infant mortality rate (the number of deaths among each thousand babies born alive) in Canada?
2.	What is the infant mortality rate in each province or territory in Canada?
3.	How does the infant mortality rate in Canada compare with the infant mortality rates of the other countries which belong to the World Health Organization or the United Nations?

Answer: 1. and 2.
Infant death rates, Canada and provinces, 1962
(Rate per 1,000 live births)
Canada	28
Newfoundland	40
P.E.I.	31
N.S.	32
N.B.	30
Quebec	32
Ontario	23
Manitoba	26
Saskatchewan	26
Alberta	25
British Columbia	23
Yukon	49
Northwest Territories	120
Infant death rates for member countries of the World Health Organization for which data are available, 1962
Rate per 1,000 live births
Australia	20
Austria	33
Belgium	28
Canada	28
Ceylon	57 (1960)
Chile	116 (1961)
Denmark	20
England and Wales	21
Finland	19
France	26
German Federal Republic	29
India**	87 (1960)
Ireland	29
Italy	41
Japan	27
Mexico	70
Netherlands	14
New Zealand	20
Northern Ireland	27
Norway	18(1961)
Peru	97 (1961)
Portugal	79
Scotland	27
Spain	42*
Sweden	15
Switzerland	21 (1961)
South Africa (White)	28
U.S.S.R.	32
United States	25
Venezuela	51 (1961)
Yugoslavia	82
* Excludes children bom alive but dead before registration of their birth.
** Registration only.
Source: United Nations publications and national reports.
Questions



CANADIAN LIFE EXPECTANCY

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the life expectancy at birth in Canada for males and females?
2.	What is the life expectancy at birth in each province or territory?
3.	How does the life expectancy in Canada compare with life expectancy of other countries which belong to the World Health Organization or the United Nations?
Answer: 1 and 2.
Expectation of life at birth for Canada and regions
1955-57	1960-62*
Males Females Males Females years
Canada	67.61	72.92
Atlantic		
provinces	67.91	72.89Quebec	66.13	71.02Ontario	67.80	73.57Prairie	provinces	69.26	74.18British	Columbia	68.14	73.91
*Not yet available for provinces.
3. Life expectancy at birth in countries for which data are available:
Male Female
Australia	Year 1953-55	years 67.14 72.75	Austria	1960	65.00	70.98Belgium	1946-49	62.04	67.26Canada	1960-62	68.35	74.17Ceylon	1954	60.3	59.4Chile	1952	49.84	53.89Denmark	1956-60	70.38	73.76England and Wales	1961	68.0	73.8Finland	1951-55	63.4	69.8France	1961	67.6	74.5German Federal Republic	1959-60	66.69	71.94India*	1957-58	45.23	46.57Ireland	1950-52	64.53	67.08Italy	1954-57	65.75	70.02Japan	1960	65.37	70.26Mexico	1940	37.92	39.79Netherlands	1956-60	71.4	74.8New Zealand	1955-57	68.20	73.00Northern Ireland	1959-61	67.38	72.11Norway	1951-55	71.11	74.70Portugal	1957-58	59.8	65.0Scotland	1961	66.13	71.78Spain	1950	58.76	63.50Sweden	1960	71.24	74.92Switzerland	1948-53	66.36	70.85South Africa (White)	1950-52	64.57	70.08U.S.S.R.	1958-59	64.42	71.68
Questions
Male Female Year	years
United States	1961	67.0	73.6Yugoslavia	1958-59	61.61	64.44
*Data for rural India, compiled by Indian Statistical Institute.
Source: United Nations Demographic Year Book 1962.



FEDERAL TAXES ON MINING PROPERTIES

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Does the federal government levy taxes on mining properties and. if so, what is the nature and basis of such taxes?
2.	Does the government obtain any other revenue from mining properties and, if so, what was the total of such revenue over the last five years for
(a)	Canada (b) province of Quebec (c) constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
3.	By what procedure does a mining operation register with the federal government?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. The federal government levies production royalties in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory in an amount ranging from 3 per cent to 12 per cent depending on the value of production and the type of mineral. It also levies an income tax on mining operations.
2.	The government obtains revenue in the form of rentals on claims or leases in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. These rentals vary from 25 cents an acre in the N.W.T. to $200 per claim in the Yukon Territory.
3.	Mining operations in the Northwest Territories are registered with the federal government in accordance with the provisions of the Canada mining regulations, Territorial Lands Act and Public Lands Grants Act. In the Yukon Territory the governing legislation is the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.



MINING PROPERTIES IN COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laiulippe: Has the government a list of all mining properties located in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac and, if so (a) what is the location of each
(b)	what is the date of opening of each?


William Moore Benidickson: The record of all mining companies operating in Quebec is maintained by the Quebec department of natural resources.



EARNINGS OF MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONS

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What are the earnings of manufacturing corporations for the last three years, after taxes, at annual rate, seasonally adjusted?
2.	What are the earnings on each dollar of sales, or profits, after taxes, per dollar of sales, seasonally adjusted?

Answer: 1. The earnings of manufacturing corporations for the last three years, after taxes, at annual rate, seasonally adjusted, are not available.
However, annual profits after taxes of manufacturing corporations for the last three years are estimated as follows: 1960, $768 million; 1961, $776 million; 1962, $930 million.
2. The earnings on each dollar of sales, or profits, after taxes, per dollar of sales, seasonally adjusted, are not available.
However, annual profits after taxes per dollar of revenue, (i.e. sales plus investment income), of manufacturing corporations for the last three years are estimated as follows: 1960, 3.1 cents; 1961, 3.0 cents; 1962, 3.3 cents.



DEPRECIATION ON SEVEN PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES

Mr. Irvine: Is the government giving consideration to permitting depreciation allowance on seven passenger automobiles, all of which would be over the $5,000 class, in order to assist funeral directing firms?


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter of government policy. If the government were to consider a change in the regulations concerning passenger automobiles it would be made known at the appropriate time.



NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN GOVERNMENT, MANUFACTURING, ETC.

Mr. Laiulippe: What was for the past year, the increase or the decrease in the number of workers in relation to the total number of employees in (a) the government (b) manufacturing (c) insurance (d) finance (e) the building trades (f) transportation (g) mining (h) agriculture?


Mr. Pepin:: The increase or the decrease from 1962 to 1963 in the average quarterly number (July-September) of employees in the following trades has been: (a) government, + 1.8%; (b) manufacturing, +2.7%; (c) and (d) finance, insurance and real estate, -0.4%; (e) building trades, +4.4%; (f) transportation, communications and storage, +0.2% (g) mining, -2.4%; (h) agriculture, -1.1%.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What annual expenditures have been made at the Eskasoni Indian reservation for each of the years 1953-1963 inclusive, and for what purposes?
Return tabled.



YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	With respect to the Post Office Department in the Yukon, since April 8, 1963, who is the postmaster or postmistress at each of the following postal stations in the Yukon: Carmacks, Old Crow, Upper Liard, Haines Junction, Swift River, McCabe Creek, Pelly crossing, Beaver Creek, Destruction Bay, Glacier Creek, Dawson City, Whitehorse R.C.A.F. Station, Whitehorse, Brooks Brook, Ross River, Calumet, Granville, Keno, Elsa, Mayo, Watson Lake, Carcross?
2.	Has there been a change of postmaster or postmistress at any of the foregoing postal stations since April 8, 1963, and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what is the name of each postmaster or postmistress in the case of each such change?
3.	What contracts for the carriage of mail by air, ground or any other means of transportation are held by any person, firm or corporation within or without the Yukon for mails carried into, out of, or within the Yukon?
4.	In the case of each such contract (a) what is the amount (b) what is the name of the holder (c) has there been any change in the terms or provisions thereof or the parties thereto, since April 8, 1963 (d) what is the expiry date?
5.	Is it the policy of the Post Office Department to continue calling for public tenders for any and/or all contracts for the carriage of mail into, out of, or within the Yukon, as the policy has been in the six years prior to April 8, 1963?
6.	Has the Postmaster General or any official or employee of the Post Office Department had any correspondence with Mr. N. V. K. Wylie, Harry Johannes, Dave Howard, or any other person in the Yukon not in the employment of the government and, if so, what has been the nature of such correspondence?
Return tabled.




Mr. Nielsen: 1.	With respect to the operation of the Department of Fisheries in the Yukon Territory, to what extent has commercial fishing been carried out in the Yukon since the establishment of the policy allowing commercial fishing in the lakes of the Yukon?
2.	Does the government contemplate extending its commercial fishing policy in the Yukon so as to allow fishing to a greater extent in a larger number of lakes than heretofore?
3.	What lakes were fished commercially in the Yukon during the years 1962 and 1963, and what number and type of fish were caught in each lake?
4.	Were any fish exported for sale outside the Yukon in the years 1962 and 1963 and, if so, what number and type of fish were so exported?
5.	Has the government been co-ordinating between the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration a (Indian affairs branch) to establish Yukon fisheries for the Yukon Indian people and, if so, what are the details of any plans existent or contemplated for the establishment of such fisheries?
6.	What fisheries personnel are now established in the Yukon, and what are the respective salaries?
7.	When was the last raise in pay provided to these personnel, and if no such raise has been provided, for what reason?
Return tabled.
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



CORRESPONDENCE WITH EXECUTIVE OF YUKON LIBERAL ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 152-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents and other papers exchanged between the Postmaster General or any of the officials or employees of the Post Office Department, and Mr. N. V. K. Wylie, Mr. H. Johannes, or Mr. Dave Howard, all of the city of Whitehorse, in the Yukon Territory, or with any other member of the executive of the Yukon Liberal association.
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the adoption of this motion and to the tabling of all official correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation of the minister.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any reservation expressed by the minister. He said that the correspondence would be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to without reservation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hellyer:: With reservation.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Postmaster General indicate whether it is with reservation or without reservation?


Azellus Denis: I did not hear the hon. member's question.


Erik Nielsen: I understood the minister to say the correspondence called for in the motion would be tabled.


An hon. Member:: Show a little more "Enterprise".


Azellus Denis: All official correspondence shall be tabled.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the Postmaster General will explain what he means by "official".


Some hon. Members:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Brewin:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications, agreements, tenders and other documents and replies originated or received by the government of Canada or any of its departments regarding the sale of any property of Canadian Arsenals Limited at Lindsay to the Hercules Sales Limited of Toronto, through or by crown assets corporation, or in relation to the sale of
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
any surplus equipment, or relating to the resale by Hercules Sales Limited of any of the said property or assets or its subsequent use.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might intervene to say that I am withdrawing this motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a general assessment of the Battelle institute report to the Alaska international rail and highway commission and of the latter's recommendations to the United States congress, prepared by the economic division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, May 26, 1961.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, somewhat unusually this motion relates to a document prepared under the previous dispensation. If the motion were accepted it would make public a series of internal, confidential reports made by officers for the guidance of the minister. Such papers, as my hon. friend knows, have always been considered privileged by the house, and I think he has some knowledge of the consequences that would flow from changing that general rule. So I would ask him whether on reflection he would agree to withdraw the motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly prepared to have the motion stand until I can discuss the minister's request with him. I have a particular reason for wishing the document to be tabled so I can have access to the information, but I certainly would not want to prejudice any negotiations which may be going on or which may be contemplated. Perhaps the motion could stand until I have had the opportunity to have a word with the minister.


Arthur Laing: There is no objection to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



ECONOMIC REPORT ON HAINES ROAD

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 161-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of an economic report on the road from Haines, Alaska, to Haines Junction, Yukon Territory, prepared by the economic division in 1961.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I request that this motion stand until the minister makes his statement, which I understand he will be doing on orders of the day.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH WORLD FAIR CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Valade:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government, any parliamentary secretary or executive assistant to any minister of the crown, including the Prime Minister's office, and any member, full time employee or subcontractor of the world fair corporation.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit this motion to stand today. I should like to have a word with him about it.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, it depends on how the work of the house progresses, because I should like to get this information before Christmas or before the world fair is already operating. I should like to know from the leader of the house when he expects to have this conversation with me, because on the basis of his answer I may accept or refuse. It depends on the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to do so at
any time I am not busy before one of the standing committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING MAIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Valade:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the office of the Postmaster General and any employee of the department concerning the awarding of contracts for the transportation of rural or city mail, other than those awarded by public tenders.
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, following a consultation with the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), I am willing to withdraw this motion, if the house agrees.
[Stage Direction]
Motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 171-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 agency or branch thereof and any other organization, person or government since April 8, 1963 dealing with the proposed closing of the unemployment insurance commission office at Kitimat, B.C.
Motion agreed to.

Inquiries of the Ministry
LOCATION OF HEAVY WATER PLANT	BRIDGES
Motion No. 173
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between any department of the federal government or any of its agencies and any other person or persons regarding the location of the proposed heavy water plant.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, this is subject to the usual reservation that correspondence, if any, between governments be tabled subject to the approval of the provincial governments concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to, subject to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-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 governments of Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics relating to the making public of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the two said governments regarding the halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) fishery.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the desired effect has been attained and I should like to withdraw this motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 176-Mr. Ormiston:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Royal Canadian Legion on the subject of a Canadian flag since April 22, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 177-Mr. MacRae:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents and other papers, including memos or records of telephone conversations between the Postmaster General or any of the officials or employees of the Post Office Department and Mr. Douglas Pettigrew, M.C., Jacquet River, N.B., Mr. Raymond Doucet, M.L.A., Durham Centre, N.B., and others in connection with the appointment of a postmaster at Jacquet River, N.B.
Azellus Denis: I have no objection to the adoption of this motion and to the tabling of all official correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us, once and for all, whether the Three Rivers bridge corporation has received the necessary authorization to undertake the construction of the said bridge?


George James McIlraith: I do not know whether the hon. member for Three Rivers wants me to give a legal opinion, but I may say that it is a body incorporated under a provincial statute, and I presume it has the necessary statutory authority.


Léon Balcer: I just want the facts. I should like the minister to tell us, once and for all, if the present government is going to defer approval that was already given by the previous government for the construction of this long awaited bridge.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should explain to the house that an order in council was passed by the previous government under date of March 4, 1963, the validity of which I have seen fit to call into question because of its contents and form. This matter has not yet been settled. The reason the matter got any notice at all when the order in council was discovered was that the work proposed would involve interfering with the flow of the St. Lawrence river in the spring of the year in a way that it would be very expensive to remedy, and would involve possibly severe interruption in the use of the river.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister is aware that the order in council in question was adopted following a complete survey of the whole question, and that there was an undertaking from the federal government to construct certain works in the river. Following the passage of this order in council the bridge corporation decided to go ahead with construction, and they are going to let the contract within a few weeks for the construction of this $35 million bridge.


George James McIlraith: I am not aware of the assertions contained in the hon. member's statement. There was some lack of completeness in the information in the files, so much so that I asked the hon. member if he would consider making available his files on the subject so I could get more information than was in the files I had available. I should point out that

Inquiries of the Ministry I could find no commitment of the former government to expend $60 million for the remedial work.


Léon Balcer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, there was no question of the federal government spending $60 million at that time. The information from all the experts in the Departments of Transport and Public Works was to the effect that these works would cost $6 million.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this question period, but in view of an answer given by the Minister of Transport to my colleague the member for Three Rivers 1 think I should ask him what the implications were in his statement that he was questioning the validity of an order in council. I can understand that an order in council, once it has been signed by His Excellency and promulgated, can be modified or repealed, but what right has a minister to question it? It can only be referred to the courts. I think this matter should be clarified this afternoon; it is on the record, and I think it should be straightened out.


George James McIlraith: It is concerned, Mr. Speaker, with what the order in council means. It has to do with the identity of plans. The language of the order in council refers to plans; there are a whole series of plans.


George Clyde Nowlan: That may be a question of fact, Mr. Speaker, as to all of the factors involved in the order in council; but I suggest that does not go to its validity. I am questioning the right of any minister to question the validity of an order in council once it has been signed by His Excellency and duly promulgated. I would ask the minister whether he does not agree that the courts are the only place in which the validity of an order in council can be questioned.


George James McIlraith: That is the whole question up for consideration now.


Some hon. Members:: Where?


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that consideration in the minister's office or is it under consideration in the courts?


George James McIlraith: It is under consideration at this point in the minister's office.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. Malher:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I have been trying to ask the finance minister for the last half hour, but in order to speed up proceedings and get a reply I think I will write him a letter.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l



EFFECT ON CANADIAN INDUSTRY OF U.S. TARIFF RECLASSIFICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: 
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member will probably recall from my statement in the house on November 12 that uncertainties created for all Canadian exporters as a result of the recent introduction of a complete revision of the United States tariff nomenclature were under discussion with the United States. These discussions are continuing. It will be recalled that the question relates to whether certain items shipped to the United States should be classified under the new United States tariff language as parts or as manufactures of the metals or other materials from which they are made. Auto parts are definitely involved and could if preliminary classifications are upheld, be subject in certain cases to rate increases such as the hon. member has mentioned.
However, the United States bureau of customs has not ruled on these classification questions. In the meantime we are in constant touch with the United States government and will of course insist that Canadian interests be safeguarded.



FINDING OF GLASS IN SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport regarding the investigation into the glass found in wheat shipments to the Soviet union. I should like to ask two questions. First, were any foreign bodies other than glass found in these wheat shipments? Second, I would like to ask either minister whether it is correct that these foreign objects, particularly glass, have been more common in

shipments passing through ports coming under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board than in shipments which have been passing through ports coming under the supervision of the board of grain commissioners?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the first part and then refer the hon. member to my colleague the Minister of Transport. Of course from time to time small quantities of foreign objects are found in grain, and it is impossible to avoid all contamination of this kind. On the particular question of glass found in some recent shipments, my colleague, the Minister of Transport has been co-ordinating an interdepartmental meeting on this subject, and I think he should answer that part of the question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the second part of the hon. member's question, the bottles or glass were found in shipments from different ports, both those under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board and those under other jurisdictions.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Is there not available a report following the inquiries made into contamination of shipments made to Great Britain?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what quantity of grain was affected by this contamination?


George James McIlraith: I cannot tell that, but I think the stories on the subject, if I may use the term as comprising a lack of precision, appear to have been magnified quite materially. It is a matter of great seriousness, because of the necessity of preserving the very fine reputation of Canadian wheat. It is important that the matter be thoroughly investigated, and every remedial step that can be taken must be taken to prevent any possibility of any recurrence or continuation of these incidents.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question that is supplementary to the previous one. Has the minister received any information from the government agencies involved as to a possibility that this kind of, one might say, industrial sabotage, has been done by supporters of the F.L.Q.? If so, are any of his officials giving any assistance to the investigation?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer that
Inquiries of the Ministry question. Neither the officials of the Department of Justice nor the R.C.M.P. have received any information to that effect. However the Minister of Transport and the other minister involved have been told that the R.C.M.P. are at their disposal, and are willing to assist and to co-operate with the provincial police, as well as with the municipal police and the national harbours board police if they should be required.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us when the house will be given a report arising from these investigations, and also what steps are being taken in the meantime to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate incident?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could add to something I said on the former question. There is no suggestion in this that there is a conspiracy, sabotage, or irregular action of that sort. It appears to be a matter of pure carelessness of persons who are working in very dusty conditions, and I may say-


An hon. Member:: They don't like water.


George James McIlraith: Well, they like the contents of a little glass, and if anyone saw the kind of work they have to do that would be well understood. Now, Mr. Speaker, this occurrence should not be permitted to get out of perspective. It is a very serious matter, but there is no suggestion of sabotage or anything like that involved. As a matter of fact, since the F.L.Q. was mentioned, I have to report that some of the bottles were found in two railway cars that had come from Ontario shipping points, one of which was a carload of soybeans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked the minister whether a report would be made.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I want to answer the question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. As soon as I can get anything to report to the house I shall be glad to do so. In the meantime steps are being taken to deal with the problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What are they?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could indicate some of them. Very close attention is being given this matter by the board of grain commissioners, the national harbours board, the other harbour authorities, the other grain shipping people and the shipping interests, because it would appear that the bottles are going in after the grain is on the ships. The kind of remedial measures taken can be illustrated by the fact that in one particular harbour the agency which sells soft drinks no longer uses bottles, but paper cups.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to ask a supplementary question, because Canada's good name in reference to wheat is at stake. Surely the minister is able to tell us how many millions of bushels have been affected. He tends to minimize a situation that affects a contract worth $500 million.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to do the very opposite. I was trying to emphasize the importance of the subject because of the proud name Canada has as a wheat supplier and wheat producer. I have no information how many bushels were affected and there has been no claim made asserting the number of bushels. Whether there will be, I do not know.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Perhaps I could help the Minister of Transport by asking him if it is not a fact that the Canadian responsibility ends after the grain has left the terminals and is being loaded on to the ships? Does it not then become the responsibility of the shipping company or of another country.


George James McIlraith: That is correct.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to revert to the last subject and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has had any official correspondence from any customer country-


An hon. Member:: What about Cuba?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Never mind Cuba. Has the minister had from the importing countries official complaints about wheat-


An hon. Member:: With glass in it.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Has the minister had any official complaints about the adulteration of wheat? Has he had any claims on the insurance; and if so, will he table them?


Mitchell William Sharp: In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I can only answer on behalf of the Canadian wheat board, and I can inform the house that the wheat board has received no claims.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reply the Minister of Transport gave me earlier, could he indicate-and this time I would ask him to answer without any prompting-whether, as he has already mentioned that our responsibility ends once the grain leaves the terminal point, from there on the responsibility in this particular case was with the Russian authorities? Could he indicate what authority he has over any investigation, and whether the Russian authorities have indicated their co-operation in any investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member put this question on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. What price per pound of heavy water have the government and Deuterium Corporation of Canada finally agreed upon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The price, Mr. Speaker, for which acceptance was approved was $20.50 a pound.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question, what is the total amount of the subsidy that will be paid on coal used to produce heavy water?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat difficult to answer as Deuterium Corporation of Canada will be buying steam from a source of steam in Nova Scotia, and not buying coal itself. It is difficult to say, therefore, how much coal will be used in this operation.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a further supplementary question, what is the amount of the subsidy paid on the coal that is used to produce this steam that will be used to produce heavy water?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At the particular location where it is proposed to produce this steam there is a subsidy payable, called an oil equalization subsidy, which varies from period to period depending on pithead costs and the distance of the user of the coal from the mines. In the particular case in question for the present period it will be of the order of 91 cents a ton.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is
Deuterium Corporation of Canada a wholly owned American company?


Lionel Chevrier: We answered that yesterday several times.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, Deuterium Corporation of Canada is, I understand, not owned by Canadian residents. There is to be a further distribution of shares, amounting to something in excess of 50 per cent, which will be made to Canadian residents.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question, does this price of $20.50 per ton represent the lowest tender bid per pound of heavy water?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I said in my statement, Mr. Speaker, the price of $20.50 represents the

lowest price for an unconditional proposal made to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question-


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Norman Thompson: -does the Minister of Industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


David Vaughan Pugh: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that on orders of the day there should be a few questions and a few answers, but we have had a full scale debate on about four subjects in the last four questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some very urgent information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say that due to the importance of one or two of the questions asked this afternoon I have perhaps permitted more time than is usual. However, it seems to me that to go any further on this line of the heavy water project would be to waste the time of the house; or, putting it in other words, I think questions would be better placed on the order paper seeking detailed information of this sort, which to a large degree is anticipating something which has not yet officially happened.



REPORTED INTENTION OP GOVERNMENT TO CALL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of persistent rumours that an election will be called in the near future, can the Prime Minister indicate if it is his intention to call an early election?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, contrary to some reports that have been made, we intend to proceed with our program for this parliament, and if an election is called before the end of this parliament it will be the responsibility of those on the other side of the house.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Frank Howard: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the last answer was very complete. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse).
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to direct to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the information he just gave to the house the same as that which he gave to the caucus this morning?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Are the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs negotiating at the present time with Washington over the 12 mile limit; and if so, will the Prime Minister give the house a report on the progress being made, either today or as soon as possible, in these negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the meeting that is being held today in Washington is over, either of the two ministers mentioned will be glad to report to the house.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General, of which I sent him notice. When does the Postmaster General propose to fill the position of postmaster at Jacquet River, New Brunswick, for which a competition was held and an eligibility list established? Or does he propose to continue to act in flagrant violation of the Civil Service Act in regard to this matter?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, there has been no violation of the law concerning the matter mentioned by the hon. member. The transfer of the post office was made last December 2 and the new postmaster is Mr. Douglas Bonar Pettigrew.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. With reference to the Columbia river treaty, on November 20 the Prime Minister stated that the discussions were to be

Inquiries of the Ministry held on a rather different level and that he would look into the matter and obtain more details for me. Would he now tell me whether a top level meeting was held, and the results?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, those meetings are still going on. The premier of British Columbia had a talk with the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the matter when he was here last week. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Washington today, and I hope will be in a position to make a report on this matter very shortly.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a less ominous question for the Minister of Transport than some which have been directed to him today. Now that the new Winnipeg airport has been in use for several weeks, has he any advice to give to the house as to when the official opening ceremonies will be held?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the official opening will take place on January 17, 1964.


Siegfried John Enns: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether there are any security precautions planned for that date to protect the modern abstract art forms of the new building from an irate public.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSULTATION RESPECTING DESIGNATION OF DEPRESSED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask my question of the Minister of Industry, but in his absence I will put it to the President of the Privy Council, who is responsible for federal-provincial relations. Now that the federal-provincial conference is over, does the minister, in the mood of co-operative federalism-


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Now that the federal-provincial conference is over, can the minister guarantee to the house that the provinces will always be consulted in the future by the Minister of Industry before local areas are designated?


An hon. Member:: He said yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting last week, and especially at the special committee which dealt with this matter, there was complete understanding between the provinces and the federal government.


Léon Balcer: Answer the question.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I now led to believe that "complete understanding" indicates that the federal government will consult the provinces at all times in the future before local areas are designated in the provinces concerned?


Maurice Lamontagne: This undertaking was given by the Minister of Industry, and it was also made public previously in the brief presented by the Prime Minister himself.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has now read the report which appeared in the papers yesterday disclosing defence policy; and will he inform the house whether the army base at Fort Churchill is to be closed down; is there to be a 10 per cent reduction of the forces; are the estimates for this year to be reduced by $74 million-


Lionel Chevrier: Are you in a debate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and is the forecast of next year's budget correct, in the articles to which I have referred?


Lionel Chevrier: That is five questions in one breath.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): To be perfectly honest, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a chance to read the article.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your picture appears in it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not really interested in looking at my own picture. However, I will try to locate it between now and tomorrow, and if my estimates are called tomorrow afternoon I will answer as many of the hon. gentleman's questions as I can at that time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. These articles speak about informed sources giving this information, meaning from the Department of National Defence. The minister should surely be able to inform the house whether these statements are correct. That is all I am asking him.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the Minister of National Defence say whether it is government policy to close about half a dozen radar stations in the Pine Tree radar line in the not too distant future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is not normal to answer questions on policy at this time. I will be glad to go into these things more fully tomorrow, if I have the opportunity.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether United States nuclear weapons are now stored at La Macaza or North Bay or at any other bases in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to take that question as notice.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED DISPUTE CONCERNING JURISDICTION OVER CRASH INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any comment to make on the reports that a conflict of jurisdiction between the Department of Transport and the Quebec provincial police impedes the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the crash of a DC-8F at St. Therese de Blainville?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have seen some of these reports. There is no jurisdictional dispute whatever between the two authorities. I think perhaps, because of the seriousness of the matter, I should explain my answer a little further by saying there is concurrent federal and provincial responsibility and jurisdiction in regard to investigation of the T.C.A. aircraft accident which occurred last Friday.
Under the Quebec coroners act and the Quebec police act responsibility for investigating circumstances relating to deaths, and authority for such investigation, is established. Similarly, in the Aeronautics Act and the air regulations made thereunder federal responsibility and authority exists for investigation of the accident to the aircraft; and, as I announced on Monday, steps have already
Inquiries of the Ministry been taken to set up a very extensive investigation under federal authority and control. There are, in effect, two sources of authority for investigation, provincial and federal. The provincial authorities are acting in accordance with their area of responsibility, while the federal investigation is proceeding under federal authority and responsibility. Both are working in close collaboration and in a spirit of mutual co-operation and assistance in this regard.



FUTURE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VISCOUNT AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if it is correct that 34 Viscount aircraft will be operated by T.C.A. during the next ten years and serviced at the Winnipeg overhaul base, as he is reported to have stated to Mr. Victor Mackie of the Winnipeg Free Press.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I think I gave that information here in the house in answer to a question, and it was repeated yesterday in the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping by the president of T.C.A.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does that mean that 34 planes will be kept in operation throughout the ten year period?


George James McIlraith: Yes, and that is what I sought to convey to the hon. member when I answered a question of his some days ago and told him that the significant change contained in the announcement was the part which indicated that the Viscounts would be kept in operation, and not phased out as had been previously intended.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, the minister, on November 26, declined to answer the question I put to him.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the question of privilege?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister gives this information to a reporter, and my question of privilege is that he denied to this house information to which we had a right, though he disclosed it to a newspaper which is friendly to him. That is my question of privilege, and I accuse the minister of misleading the house on November 26 on this subject.


Lionel Chevrier: You are attacking him because he gives too much information to the house.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Lionel Chevrier: You did a while ago.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: I think I should point out that the first day questions were asked on this matter I did not have the precise figures with me. The second day, I had verified a great many of the figures as best I could. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that on no occasion did the hon. gentleman do me the courtesy of giving me notice when he wanted precise numbers.



TYPE OF ENGINE USED IN DC-8F PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday concerning the type of aircraft engine used on the DC-8F's which crashed recently?


George James McIlraith: Yes. I am informed these aircraft were equipped with Pratt and Whitney fan jet engines type JT 3D-3.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On November 20 I asked him a question, reported on page 4961 of Hansard as follows:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to appear before the standing committee on privileges and elections to outline to that committee the details of the government's program for making a contribution from the public treasury toward the costs incurred by parties and candidates during election campaigns?
The answer given by the Prime Minister at that time was:
I have not been invited to appear before the committee, so the question is indeed hypothetical.
I should like now to ask the Prime Minister whether as yet he has received an invitation to appear before that committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I asked whether, if I found it not easy to appear because of other activities, I could delegate a spokesman for the government; and I have done that.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Is that spokesman the Secretary of State?


Lester Bowles Pearson: At the moment I am not quite sure, but I will look into it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Now that 61 days have passed can he tell me when my question No. 1,237 on the order paper will be answered? It was placed there on October 4.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question involves 141 contracts. It is a complicated question. We have answers to most of it, but expect a complete answer to be ready by next Monday. I would ask the hon. member to be patient until next Monday.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would assist the house in reconciling the strong condemnation of Portugal's colonial policies by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in last Thursday's debate and Canada's vote at the United Nations yesterday against a resolution opposing those policies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no necessity to reconcile those two positions, but I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I think will be in the house tomorrow.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: On
November 21 I put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to suggest that "O Canada" be adopted as the national anthem of Canadians, when he introduces his bill to give Canada a truly Canadian national flag?
This question having been ruled out of order at that time, I put it on the order paper the next day, as suggested by the Speaker.
As I have not received any answer yet, I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to answer that question soon or to include it instead in the Liberal program at the next election?

Inquiries of the Ministry
[Text]	and that an investigation by an independent


Lester Bowles Pearson: body is quite unnecessary. Incidentally, the
I hope to be in a position to answer this commissioner of penitentiaries is out there question in a very few days.	now, and I am sure he would have reported
to me had there been anything amiss with PENITENTIARIES	the operation there.



NEW WESTMINSTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam concerning the trial of three inmates in British Columbia. I did receive a letter from the judge at the trial of Messrs. Carlson, Wood and Casey, the three inmates who were tried and convicted for activities in connection with the attempted jail break from New Westminster penitentiary on April 19 and 20, 1963. The judge enclosed with his letter the recommendations brought in by the jury. In summary, these recommendations are:
1.	That one inmate be given a cancer check at a recognized cancer clinic in Vancouver.
2.	That the three inmates be transferred from British Columbia.
3.	That based on evidence presented in this case regarding treatment of prisoners, an independent and official investigation into these allegations was recommended.
The honourable judge stated in his letter to me:
The jury brought in recommendations as set out on the sheet enclosed and I promised that these would be passed on to the proper authorities.
I should add that I am not at all in accord with any of these recommendations as I was not satisfied on the evidence that there was anything to be investigated except the alleged crimes before the court.
The commissioner of penitentiaries informs me that the inmate Casey has been examined on many occasions and has not got cancer. However, he is directing that a specialist consultant is to give this inmate a complete check and that a report is to be furnished to him by the penitentiary psychiatrist concerning the obsession that this inmate has.
On the second recommendation, steps have been taken to transfer the young inmate Carlson to another institution to get him away from the influence of Casey. Casey will remain at British Columbia penitentiary until St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is in a proper state to handle this inmate.
On the third recommendation, I accept the statement of the honourable judge, that there was nothing in the evidence presented at the court that disclosed that there was anything to be investigated. I am satisfied that the British Columbia penitentiary is well run 28902-5-346



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the ubiquitous and indispensable Secretary of State a question.


An hon. Member:: Indispensable?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Nobody is indispensable.


Frank Howard: I ask it because of the possibility that the privileges of the house may be involved. Would the hon. gentleman mind looking at motion No. 169 which stood in my name and related to a single telegram. The motion was passed by the house and I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether that telegram, or a copy of it, could be tabled at the earliest possible moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to look at it.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS INVITATION TO SECRETARY OF STATE TO APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of standing order 39, paragraph (1), I would ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt, chairman of the committee on mines, forests and waters, if he intends to invite the Secretary of State to attend the next meeting of that committee in order to give him the opportunity to explain the commitments he made in the house.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I will be pleased to report to the committee any decision which I may take concerning the evidence to be heard by the committee at the meeting on Friday morning.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. He has not answered the question I asked him. I asked him if he intended to invite the Secretary of State following the latter's suggestion that he appear before the said committee. What I want is an answer to that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Osias.-J. Godin: That would seem obvious, since the Secretary of State himself indicated he would be prepared to appear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another supplementary question on this matter. Could I ask the chairman of that committee at what time he intends to ask the Secretary of State to appear before the said committee?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: On a question of privilege; I failed to catch the entire exchange between the hon. member for Lapointe and the chairman of the mines, forests and waters committee. Did I understand the chairman of that committee to indicate that he would do something? Considering that at the committee meeting this morning, at the insistence of Liberal members, the steering committee could not even make a decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the reply of the chairman was sufficiently clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: few days ago I asked the Prime Minister if he intended to add to, or change in any way, the outline of the legislation which the government had announced for this session. The Prime Minister said at that time he would make an answer in a few days. I wonder if he is in a position to make it now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been some discussions as to the procedure to be followed during the rest of the session. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this and related matters tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if I could ask the leader of the house which estimates will be taken up tomorrow, so that everybody may have an opportunity to prepare.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow it is proposed, immediately after the orders of the day are reached, to take the estimates of the Department of National Defence. If they should not be concluded by tomorrow evening it is proposed to go on 

with them on Friday. I will indicate at the usual time and in the usual way what will be taken after that.



CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT


George James McIlraith: the third reading of Bill No. C-112, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AERONAUTICS ACT


George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. C-117, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: A bill containing a large part of what appears in the measure now before the house was given first reading by the last parliament but because of the dissolution of that parliament it was not proceeded with. Perhaps I should outline briefly the principles included in the existing bill.
At the outset let me explain that the amendments are primarily intended to clarify and strengthen existing legislation and to make provision for fees and charges, some of which are now collected pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. Fields with which the amendments deal are fields in which the department is already active. The department's efforts in these fields have been taken under the general over-all authority of the Financial Administration Act and part I of the Aeronautics Act, but the experience which we have had has led us to believe that on a number of points our authority and our responsibility should be more clearly spelled out. I will review these points briefly.
The bill provides for regulations prescribing charges in respect of aircraft and airports. At present, charges are levied under air services fees regulations made under the authority of the Financial Administration Act. This act provides in part that fees may be prescribed by regulation charging the whole or part of the cost of any service to the person or persons for whom it is provided. Some of the facilities required by modern aircraft in the air and at airports are not encompassed by the word "service", and accordingly it is considered desirable to broaden the base on which charges may be levied. To accomplish this purpose it is felt that it would be better to place the authority

for charges in respect of aircraft and airports in the Aeronautics Act. The amendment would permit the government to deal with the situation which developed recently when it was decided to withdraw the route facility fee which had been imposed in January, 1960, under the authority of the Financial Administration Act. There is serious doubt that the Financial Administration Act authorizes this charge.
The bill also provides for regulations respecting the maximum hours of work and other working conditions for pilots, co-pilots, navigators and flight engineers employed by any person operating a commercial air service licensed by the air transport board. The complexity of the larger aircraft of today, the speeds at which they travel and the ever-increasing number of aircraft now in operation require flight crews to be at a peak of physical and mental efficiency during flight. To ensure this standard of efficiency it is necessary that the crew members do not remain on duty for excessive periods of time and be not required to work under conditions which are detrimental to safety.
There is provision for regulations to be made respecting the entering of the premises of any aircraft manufacturer and the inspecting of those premises, including any equipment, stock or records found therein, for the purpose of determining the airworthiness of aircraft manufactured by that manufacturer. No aircraft manufactured in Canada may be put to civil use unless it is airworthy and fit and safe in all respects for flight. It is the department's responsibility to ensure this; and to do this it is necessary to obtain complete information on the aircraft, including its parts and components and the facilities and equipment available to its builder.
There is also provision for regulations respecting the preservation and removal of aircraft involved in accidents, including the cargo thereof, and the preservation, removal and testing of any part of the aircraft. All hon. members will be particularly sensitive in these recent days to the fact that it is of the utmost importance that the exact cause of an aircraft accident should be determined, since this knowledge may serve to avert other mishaps. If the cause of an accident is to be determined, however, then it may be necessary to retain custody of the aircraft and its cargo and to remove and test any part of the aircraft.
Provision is also made for regulations respecting the use and operation of rockets, moored balloons and kites that, in the opinion of the governor in council, are hazardous to air navigation. It is rather interesting to note here that in more recent times the firing of rockets for military and scientific purposes 28902-5-3464
Aeronautics Act
has engendered intense public interest in this field of endeavour, so much so that we now have the amateur rocketeer constructing and firing his own rockets. Many of these do-it-yourself rockets are capable of reaching considerable altitudes and, although it has not happened yet in Canada, aircraft in flight have already suffered damage from these missiles. Although they have been with us for a considerably longer period of time, the moored balloon and kite are also something of a hazard to aircraft in flight, particularly when flown in close proximity to an aerodrome.
Another provision would vest the Canadian courts with jurisdiction in respect of offences against air regulations committed outside Canada. The Aeronautics Act already authorizes the making of regulations respecting the conditions under which aircraft registered in Canada may be operated outside Canada, but it does not confer jurisdiction on any Canadian court in respect of such offences committed ex juris.
Finally, the bill would authorize the establishment of boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents or any alleged violations of the regulations, and would give such boards the necessary powers to fulfil their tasks properly and provide for the payment of witnesses' expenses. This amendment is particularly important as regards aircraft accidents since, if the cause of the accident is to be determined, it may require the establishment of a board armed with sufficient authority to summon and examine witnesses under oath. Hitherto this right has not been given specifically under the act.
I consider the bill to be a forward step. I consider that it will improve the financial position of the department in the operation of airports and route facilities, and it will also advance the safety of air travel in Canada. I would hope the bill would commend itself to the house. As I indicated in my opening remarks, a very substantial part of it was brought forward by the previous government but was not proceeded with by reason of the dissolution of that parliament. Those parts are reincorporated in this bill, together with some new material, as I have indicated in my speech.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the explanation he has given of the bill now before us. It is a fact that such a bill was brought to the attention of the house in a previous session and from what I can gather from the minister's remarks only a few changes have been made in the bill.
I am interested in the indication in the minister's remarks that the department has

Aeronautics Act
decided to give up its regulation with regard to route facility fees. I know that in the past this has always been a sore point with the foreign carriers. The matter was brought before the courts and I do not think the position of Canada in this regard was too sound legally. I quite agree with the minister that the matter has to be settled one way or another. It would be interesting to know from the minister what amount would have accrued to Canada if the regulations could have been proved to be legal, and also what amounts are going to be paid back to air lines and what air lines are involved.
With regard to the other matters in the bill there is no doubt that most of them are needed amendments. I am sure that members will have a few questions to ask on the various clauses of the bill. For myself I will reserve my other remarks until we are studying the clauses one by one.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have some pertinent remarks to make with respect to the general principles involved in the bill, as well as the individual clauses of the bill itself. I feel that one of the most serious threats to the efficient use of private aircraft is the present attitude of Canada's air transport board. I speak as one who is quite familiar with the air transport board's operations and the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act because I come in contact with them constantly. I fly my own aircraft and use the airports right across this country and in the United States. I feel that there are three real threats to the growth of private flying in Canada. One, as I have already stated, is the attitude of the air transport board, and the other two are related because as our commercial air industry grows the tendency is for the government, and rightly so in certain respects, through the air transport board to design their regulations and their laws to favour the commercial sector of the aircraft industry in Canada.
The air transport board, I think, readily admits that one of the purposes of its existence is to deter private flying to the extent that private flying may interfere with the efficient operation of commercial carriers. If private flying detracts from the revenues of commercial air lines, then there is an immediate tendency to protect the sources of revenue of the commercial carriers. There are specific sections in the bill, for instance, which impose fees on airplanes using the Department of Transport facilities. The commercial air carriers are not hurt, because of the size of their treasuries, when it comes to complying with these sections, but the private flying industry is seriously affected.

I think it would be useful at this stage to consider the extent to which private flying in Canada has grown in the past few years. As of June 30 this year, official Department of Transport records showed that there were 6,381 Canadian civil aircraft on the registry. Of those only 5,242 had valid certificates of air worthiness. If we compare this situation with that existing in the United States, we find that in that country there were in excess of 8,000 private aircraft on the registry. Most other countries in the world have substantially lower numbers of private airplanes on their respective registries. The fact then emerges that Canada, amongst all the nations of the world, has the second largest private air industry in existence. This is quite a phenomenal growth from the days when transportation was by horse and buggy, by train or by automobile.
We are now faced with legislation that is designed specifically to curb Canada's private air industry. The fees which it is intended to levy against private airplanes using D.O.T. facilities, as the minister has stated, will greatly increase the revenues of the department. I feel, however, that the imposition of a one dollar landing fee at Toronto international airport, Montreal and Vancouver, whether on a private aircraft or any aircraft using these facilities, is not going substantially to increase the revenues of the department. I think, therefore, a valid argument could be made, and I would hope the minister would give serious consideration to it, for changing the section as it applies to private aircraft in respect of these landing fees.
The airports of this country are there for the benefit of all Canadians, just as are the highways. It seems to me wrong in principle that a landing fee should be charged the operator of a private aircraft who goes into a government airfield, just as it would be wrong for an automobile user to pay a toll on the trans-Canada highway. It seems to me that the aircraft owner is already a taxpayer. He contributes towards the cost of these Department of Transport facilities in the same way an automobile owner contributes through his taxes towards the construction of highways. Why should the private owner pay double taxation simply because he chooses one form of transportation over another?


Mr. Byrne:: Does he pay tax on gasoline?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, taxes are paid by aircraft users who purchase gasoline. There is a special tax on gasoline products purchased at most airports across the country. In Ontario, the tax is 17 cents, I think, although certain rebates are granted in most cases. Additional taxes to those paid by automobile

users are imposed on the users of aircraft fuel. This is a provincial source of revenue, I believe, and has no significance so far as the federal government is concerned. For the life of me, I cannot see how the private aircraft owner who is charged a dollar whenever he lands at Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, is going to make any substantial contribution to the federal treasury. Think of the harm the imposition of this fee will cause. It already has caused harm in Montreal, and I believe the minister or his officials have received representations from organizations in this country who have brought this matter to his attention.
The business concessions at these airports which dispense fuel, the flying clubs which heretofore have been visited frequently by the private aircraft owner who had the privilege of using these services before, are no longer used to the same extent by him as they were before the imposition of these fees. While I am talking about fees, perhaps the minister might explain something to me. It seems to me that the purpose of the bill is the imposition of these fees against private aircraft using these D.O.T. facilities, and yet the fee is already being charged. This is a matter that perhaps requires explanation. If the fees have been charged without authority, then there seems to be something wrong.
There is another sector of the economy that is going to be affected by the imposition of these fees. As the minister knows, there are no national airports in the United States, the airports being owned by municipal or civil authorities. Consequently, there are no national laws requiring the payment of landing fees or other payments for the use of nationally provided facilities. In fact, there is complete freedom in the United States to use these facilities for air travel without any charge whatever. What we are doing is imposing on the United States air travellers who come to this country in great numbers, a nuisance tax-because that is in effect what it is. The air traveller has to land, walk into the airport manager's office and pay one dollar. As I have said, I think that this is going to discourage a great deal of tourist traffic, particularly in the Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal areas.
I want to say a word or two about one or two of the other regulations which I think impose an undue restriction on the growth of the private air industry in this country. One of them is the present air navigation order No. 7, series 1, which sets forth that the owner of a private aircraft is exempt from certain air regulations in respect of claiming compensation by way of rebates on income taxes and the like, if he uses his aircraft on his employer's business.
Aeronautics Act
He can, under the air regulations, be reimbursed for the use of that aircraft if he is travelling on business, but the anomaly in this regulation is that he is the only one who can claim such reimbursement and before he does so he must receive prior approval from the air transport board. Having regard to the speed with which any government agency operates, hon. members can see immediately that where a private aircraft owner is using his aircraft for a business trip he has to plan weeks and months ahead, in order to write to the air transport board to obtain approval before he can obtain reimbursement.
The provision is workable so far as large companies are concerned, with respect to large fuel costs; but nowadays many small businesses are using private aircraft, and if the owner of a small business uses an aircraft to transport his employees from one place of business to another place of business in Canada, the owner of the aircraft can claim reimbursement only for himself. If he takes his accountant, his solicitor, or any other of his staff on that private air journey and just for business purposes, he cannot claim reimbursement under the existing regulations. I think this is an unduly restrictive provision of the air regulations, and is one which is deserving of the minister's very serious consideration.
It would be just as strange to hon. members as if a person using his automobile on business in the province of Ontario had to write to the Department of Transport if he wished to claim allowances when he uses his own automobile for business purposes. Certainly under the provisions of our present legislation the owner of a private automobile, if he moves from A to B on business, can carry the employees of his business with him and obtain reimbursement for travelling expenses. Therefore I cannot see why the owner of a private airplane, which he is using in the course of the conduct of his business, cannot be entitled to claim the same reimbursement. The aircraft is becoming more and more an accepted means of transportation, and it should be viewed in that light.
The other matter which I would like to draw to the minister's attention covers the allowances now in existence under the legislation, permitting a privately owned aircraft to be depreciated. A person in business who owns an automobile and uses it for business purposes is allowed certain depreciation allowances, and those allowances, while they may not be generous, are regarded as being sufficiently broad so that the businessman has no doubt as to when he may claim depreciation and when he may not.
But the private aircraft owner is not so fortunate. Again these matters do not apply

Aeronautics Act
to the commercial operators, but they certainly do to the private operators. Right now the sleuths in the Department of National Revenue are down on the necks of practically every business that operates a private aircraft for business purposes. It is an uphill battle and struggle to claim reasonable depreciation allowance on privately owned aircraft that are used in the businesses of the owners.
I mention one organization about which I am sure the minister has heard. It is the Canadian owners and pilots association, with headquarters here in Ottawa. I am sure they must have made representations to the minister with respect to the imposition of the fees being called for by this legislation. They publish a magazine called "Canadian Flight," and in the April-May issue of this year, and again in the October-November issue, editorials set forth their objections to the imposition of these fees. I read from the April-May issue where the editorial has this to say:
The latest move in what is obviously a creeping campaign to discourage the use of major airports by small private aircraft is the imposition by the Department of Transport of landing fees for private aircraft at Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. And to make the pill even harder to swallow, the department at the same time has announced rate increases of up to 50 per cent for outside storage of aircraft at various D.O.T. airports across the country.
This is another matter which is not covered by the regulations, and to which I take serious objection. The minister has airports under his jurisdiction all across the country, with hangars standing on them empty, or filled with farm equipment, or material other than aircraft. Over the past few years I paid rent for storage in a hangar at Whitehorse at a cost of $30 a month. This year, the rate has been increased to $50 a month, and this is not the type of policy that will induce Canadian citizens to engage in flying activity.
I think it is desirable to encourage the growth of a private air industry, but we are certainly not going to do it by following a policy that is going to utilize hangars, which should be made available for aircraft at more reasonable rates, for the storage of farm and other equipment. Also the rates for outside storage have been increased by 50 per cent. Even just to tie an aircraft down on a D.O.T. managed airport costs $18 a month, and the aircraft may suffer from snow-blowing equipment that scatters ice and rocks over it.
The editorial goes on to say:
Even if these decisions were justified-and that is a highly debatable point-the manner of their introduction has proved to be irritating in the extreme and has stirred up a violent storm of opposition in all parts of the country. In the first place, the new levies were imposed with virtually no warning at all, thus making it impossible for the affected parties either to present

opposing arguments or to plan a switch in their operations to other airports. Nor has D.O.T. offered any suitable alternatives to those aircraft owners who are being "pressured by price" away from the major airports.
Here we seem to have a very confused policy with respect to the decisions of the Minister of Transport. Anybody who has read the press or listened to the debates in this house over recent months, must realize that the Department of Transport is trying to separate the light aircraft training operations from scheduled aircraft movements. I only need to quote the exchanges which have taken place in this house with regard to the Penhold training base, and with regard to the Edmonton air base, as being prime examples of this confusion in policy.
I think I can do no better than quote the minister as recorded in Hansard for October 1 at page 2888 where he says in part:
Because of the capacity of the international airport, the size of which was increased during the construction period, I see no need to hold the city to its earlier commitment that it maintain a secondary airport.
He was referring to the city of Edmonton, and this is obviously opening the way towards federal concurrence in the discontinuance of services at the municipal airport. In other words, the minister is saying the new airport in Edmonton can absorb all the flying activity, which includes training schools and scheduled flights.


George James McIlraith: No, just read the statement.


Erik Nielsen: That is going to be the result of it because the small aircraft mainly used the municipal airport. The majority, perhaps 90 per cent of the private aircraft owned in the Edmonton area, use the municipal airport. If that airport is closed down-which seems to be the likelihood because it seems the minister is in favour of that idea, judging from what I read of his remarks, anyway; and perhaps he can clarify this matter-all those private aircraft will be forced to go to the Edmonton international airport. I believe we have a direct conflict here. If that is to be the policy, how does it stand when you set it side by side with closing the Penhold air base, simply because in the opinion of the minister and the government jet flying training in that vicinity interferes with the commercial operation. I do not agree with that either. This also has to do with facilities which are being closed down and which I think are very, very necessary to the safety of aircraft navigation in this country.
At the Portage la Prairie base, for instance, the jet training station was right in the middle of an airway. The radio range in the area was bent. I am sure the minister has been advised by his officials that it is possible

to bend radio ranges so that air traffic can be routed around dangerous areas. They do it in mountainous areas and other areas in which there are obstructions to safe navigation. It seems to me that very little difficulty would be encountered in bending the range at Red Deer, Calgary and Edmonton if it were felt desirable to have jet training operations at Penhold. The Portage la Prairie base, for instance, is right on the edge of the airway at the moment, the airway being ten miles wide. There is no technical difficulty that I can see in bending the radio range so that commercial air traffic can be routed as far as 20 miles away on a dog leg around the Penhold air base. If that is the only reason for not going ahead with the jet training program at Penhold, it is a very flimsy one. I think the minister's technical advisers will tell him that what I have been suggesting- that is, bending the radio range-is very, very possible.
The Department of Transport, as I understand it, has ordered all training away from terminal areas. I would like the minister to clarify this when he replies to these remarks. My understanding of the instructions which have been issued by his department is that it is going to be the policy to get training away from terminal areas and to use secondary airports, or encourage the building of more secondary airports, and encourage private and light aircraft to use those secondary or other airports. There exists, in my View, a very serious confusion in policy here, and I think it requires clarification.
I want to get back to rates, Mr. Chairman. I think the decision to raise the rates for outside storage is particularly hard to defend. The editor of "Canadian Flight", which is the official publication of the Canadian owners and pilots association says:
At many airports, private aircraft are allotted space on land that the D.O.T. does not use and on which no maintenance or servicing expenditures are made. In return for a 50 per cent increase in rates for use of this land, the aircraft owner is being offered no additional services or benefits of any consequence.
The new tariffs will impose a greater hardship in some areas than in others. Because of a variety of factors, Vancouver seems to have been dealt the severest blow-
I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the house who come from the Vancouver area will have these facts in mind when they come to support this legislation, if they intend to so support it. This article continues:
-with the result that a new province-wide organization of aircraft owners has sprung up, practi-cially overnight, in order to fight this legislation.
I am sure that the new organization has made representations to the minister. There was a meeting last November in Alberta of
Aeronautics Act
the C.O.P.A., the Alberta aviation council and the new B.C. organization. Out of that meeting came certain resolutions with respect to these new rates. The support this new B.C. organization received was such that within a ten-day period the organization was able to finance itself, set up 13 committees and send a delegation to Ottawa. Surely the minister considers this rather convincing evidence, if any were needed, of the unpopularity of the latest Department of Transport action against private aviation.
If we read the provisions of this bill we see that most of them are designed as an invasion of what I consider should be the prerogatives of private aviation in this country. Certainly the air transport board is a very necessary organization. There is no doubt whatsoever that the highest possible standards of flight safety have to be maintained in a country such as ours, which has experienced such a rapid growth in aviation technology and use in recent years. Tragedies are going to occur. I think many people misunderstand and miscalculate the comparisons that are made between travel by air, travel by road or by any other method of transportation. I think it is very interesting, in this connection, to look at the figures. Very recently the dominion bureau of statistics drew up a comparison of accident rates of motor vehicles and aircraft. Private aircraft in Canada do not have to report the miles travelled, so these comparisons can only apply to Canadian aircraft other than those privately registered or those owned by government departments such as the departments of forestry in Ontario and Saskatchewan. In the three years 1959, 1960 and 1961 the average number of fatalities per 1 million motor vehicle road miles was 5.9, according to the bureau of statistics. For the same three year period the fatalities which occurred as a result of aircraft accidents in Canada averaged .022 per 1 million air miles. So the motto perhaps might be "Be very careful when you drive to the airport". I think these statistics testify to the level of safety which has been achieved by the commercial air industry in this country.
The air transport board and other divisions and branches of the Department of Transport which have been concerned with flight safety in this country have contributed to this very enviable record of safety in air travel in Canada. But I do not think we should confuse the desirability of encouraging the growth of safety factors in the commercial air industry in Canada with the undesirable effect produced by government agencies suppressing the growth of the private air industry. For instance, I can take one clause of the bill, clause 2, which purports to clothe

Aeronautics Act
the government with the authority to stipulate the maximum hours of work and other working conditions for pilots, co-pilots, navigators and flight engineers employed by any person operating a commercial air service licensed by the air transport board. This is a very necessary thing as far as large commercial operators are concerned. They have to maintain high standards of health in pilots, co-pilots and air crews generally who are flying machines of the size and complexity of the DC-8. But I wonder how much consideration was given by the drafters of this legislation to the operator of the helicopter service who is operating, say, out of Inuvik, Dawson Creek or Prince George, or to the operator of a fixed-wing operation across the Arctic, because the regulations apply to those pilots, navigators and flight engineers as well. I do not think very much consideration was given to the small, private operator of a commercial air service in Canada, because with the seasons as short as they are in the north country, and with the exacting standards of work placed upon these operators by government departments such as the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in their laudable desire to get work accomplished as quickly as they can, these operators are taxed to their limit.
The pilot of a helicopter carries an engineer with him wherever he is operating under contract with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. That engineer is on duty 24 hours a day. If there is a regulation proposed in clause 2 of the bill imposing a restricted number of flying hours on commercial pilots, it not only applies to commercial pilots flying DC-8's, if no exceptions are made, but also to operators flying a Bell helicopter in the north country, or a Cessna 180, or a -Beaver, an Otter, or a Norseman in northern Ontario.
Another clause of the bill which seems to invade not only the rights of private operators of commercial air services but also involves the rights of individuals is clause 3, where a board of inquiry is going to be set up to investigate aircraft accidents. That is a very laudable feature of the bill, but nevertheless I wonder if the evidence given before such a board, as is usual in air transport board hearings or hearings involving government departments, will be made available to the general public. For instance, if I were to testify before such a board, what disposition would be made of the evidence that I give? This matter gives me some concern.
I should like to say that in my view the Canadian public has come to accept the aeroplane as a primary means of transportation. The versatility of use to which an aircraft can be put bears this out. For example, pleasure

flying, flying for business purposes, for agricultural purposes, such as crop spraying and the like, are only a few of the many forms of activity which comprise our aviation industry, other than that part which most people think of in terms of T.C.A. or C.P.A., and other large air lines. All of these flying activities have become essential to our modern way of life, and aircraft owners in Canada, as I have shown from the statistics I have put before the house, are on the increase. The industry should be encouraged to grow. I think the public requires that the benefits of transportation in all its forms, including aviation, should be widely available at low cost, and with the minimum imposition of tariffs and inconvenience. The imposition of fees such as those which are going to be authorized by this bill are not going to contribute at all to the growth of private aviation in Canada. In my view they are going to retard the free use of the private aeroplane.
There is one feature the hon. member for Three Rivers mentioned a moment ago with regard to over-flights and the endeavours of the government to impose certain fees on foreign carriers flying over Canada and using Canadian facilities. As I see it, the hon. member for Three Rivers suggested that the government had abandoned its attempt to impose these fees. I hope that is the case. However, my reading of the first clause of the bill indicates to me that the government may, if it wishes, impose these very fees. As the clause reads now, it will allow the governor in council to make regulations to impose any fee or charge for the use of any facility provided by or on behalf of the minister in respect of any aircraft. Those facilities include radio ranges and non-directional beacons, as well as airports; in fact, every single facility that is provided by the Department of Transport for air navigation in this country.
Here I want to mention the policy of the department of discontinuing the use of radio ranges. Hon. members know how airplanes get from point A to point B in this country in weather conditions which do not allow one always to look at the ground. The facilities used are radio navigation facilities. The basic facility, which has been with us now for 20 years, is the air radio range station. The policy of the government now is gradually to close down these radio range stations. This is being done in a phased fashion, but I think it is a wrong decision to make. First to go in the radio range station is voice communication. Next to go is the station itself. These stations are being replaced with what are known as non-directional beacons. That is all very good for the large air services. They can operate because they have thousands and

thousands of dollars worth of radar equipment in their aeroplanes and have advanced radio aids which are being installed by the department, and very properly so. But I would again turn the minister's attention to the private aircraft industry in this country, which involves some 5,000 aeroplanes actively flying around the country which have not got this type of facility. Even if they could get it the aircraft would be too small for its installation. These aircraft are left with a diminishing number of aids to navigation. As a matter of fact, the discontinuance of these services is taking place so rapidly in Canada that the "Canada Air Pilot" cannot even keep up with them. One can pass a radio range these days and attempt to report, and the "Canada Air Pilot" has made no mention of the fact that voice communication has been discontinued at that radio range. The first thing that pilot knows is that he is reported missing because he has not reported, after having planned to report at that particular station. I am thinking in this instance of Brandon, where voice communication has been discontinued. I should like to support any move which would result in a saving of funds to the Canadian taxpayer, but 1 do not do so if it be inconsistent with the safety of air navigation. I very seriously question whether the government policy of discontinuing operation of radio ranges in this country is sound, because I think it is going to impair the safety of air navigation, not of the large carriers but certainly of the smaller carriers.
On the other hand, on the credit side, some of the facilities offered by the Department of Transport to the air industry in Canada are very desirable indeed; for instance, the development of ultra high-frequency equipment and the authorization of a continuous wide area of broadcasting of aviation weather over the Toronto low-frequency radio range. This is of benefit to every pilot flying in southern Ontario. I understand that this is being done on an experimental basis, and I would urge the minister to do it in other areas of Canada as well.
These facilities, as with airports, are services provided by the Canadian taxpayer. One of these taxpayers is the private aircraft user, the private aircraft owner, and it seems to me that if he has to pay for these very desirable services he is, in effect, paying double taxation. I have already made the analogy of the use of an aeroplane and air highways and the use of an automobile and ground highways. There should be no taxation of the private aircraft user any more than there should be taxation of the automobile user in the form of direct fees for the 28902-5-347
Aeronautics Act
use of facilities. If airport charges are to be made-and certainly clause 1 of the bill gives this authority to the government-I see no reason why the clause could not also be extended to tax private aircraft users using radio ranges and other like facilities.


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


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I was
interested to notice the intention of the minister, as indicated on the order paper, to introduce amendments to the Aeronautics Act. If I am not mistaken, this is the first time since 1952 that the act has been before the house for amendment. I was hopeful that the hon. gentleman would have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by these amendments to include something in this bill to revise that section of the act which makes provision for appeals to be made to the minister from decisions of the air transport board only by the air line which happens to be immediately affected or, perhaps I should say, by the one which has applied, and not by others which might be affected. However, having given consent last night to allowing the resolution stage of this measure to pass without debate, I suppose I cannot pursue this matter further at this time and that I will have to reserve any further comments I might have to make in this connection to a later date.
I regret I was called out of the house for a short time, with the result that I missed the opening remarks made by the minister in introducing this bill. He may have answered, then, some of the questions I have in mind and which I intend to raise in the course of these observations. If that should be the case, perhaps he would just indicate to me, when he replies, that this is the situation, in which case I will consult his earlier remarks when they appear in Hansard tomorrow.
As I see it, one of the principal amendments contained in this bill has to do with the power of the governor in council to make charges for the use of airport and other facilities provided by the department. One question which occurs to me is this: Just what additional charges are contemplated to the users of these facilities in addition to those currently charged? What impact are these extra charges, if any, likely to have on air line fares and passengers? I must say I cannot share the thinking of the hon. member who preceded me on this aspect of the subject. If I understood him correctly, he was inclined to think no charges should be levied upon private plane operators for the use of facilities provided out of public funds. It seems to me this is an area where it

Aeronautics Act
could very well be that those who use the facilities should pay for them to a reasonable extent. It is obvious that most Canadian taxpayers are not, now, and will not, at least in the foreseeable future be, in a position to fly around in their own planes. I really do not think an analogy can be drawn between the situation of a plane owner and of an automobile owner in our present society. As the owner and driver of an automobile I certainly feel I contribute substantially in the course of a year toward the operation of public facilities which enable me to drive around the country. I do not feel that an unduly high levy should be exacted from plane operators, but I feel there is some reason why they should be required to pay a reasonable amount to defray the cost of facilities provided out of public funds.
I was interested, too, in what the hon. member had to say about clause 2 of the bill which gives the governor in council authority to fix maximum hours of work and make other regulations governing the working conditions of pilots. As I understand it, this clause authorizes the making of regulations which are yet to be drafted. I fail to see how one can reasonably conclude that the hours of work and conditions of work of a pilot of a DC-8 would necessarily be those provided in the case of pilots of some of the smaller aircraft operated by the smaller commercial lines. I would like to say, however, as one who has occasion to travel not only on DC-8's but on some of these smaller aircraft, that as far as I am concerned it is the same hide which is involved whether I am travelling aboard a DC-8 or on a Norseman. I am just as concerned that the pilot of that small plane should not be endangering himself or his passengers because he is working under conditions of undue fatigue, or for other similar reasons, as I am that the captain of a DC-8 should be in good shape to do his job. The crash of a small plane might not be as spectacular as the tragic accident which took place recently, but its effects are just as unfortunate for those who happen to be passengers on the small plane. If the minister has not already done so I should like him to indicate what changes are contemplated in the present regulation with respect to the hours and working conditions of pilots, navigators and other flight personnel.
With these observations I think I will conclude, and await the reply to be given by the minister when he closes this debate. In the light of that reply I may have further questions to ask during the committee stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: I should like the minister to reply to my questions, if he does not mind, and state more fully what his intentions are with respect to clause 1 of the bill in particular.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George James McIlraith: 
Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know whether he is familiar with the situation at Portage la Prairie which is now an R.C.A.F. jet training base. Would he mind comparing Penhold with Portage la Prairie? It is true that Portage la Prairie does not have three air routes converging there, but at Portage quite a large area has been set aside well south of the air route and the air station and procedures have been developed which do not endanger the main air route which passes right over the edge of Portage and is sufficiently close to cause danger under the principle enunciated by the minister. Could not the same procedures be developed at Pen-hold whereby jet aircraft would be routed in such a fashion that they would be in an area free of any commercial air traffic?


George James McIlraith: The simple answer to the question is no. We had that situation looked into rather thoroughly because of an interview that took place recently with persons making representations respecting the Pen-hold base. They made the same point, and as a consequence we had it looked into particularly. The situation is different in almost every material respect. The ab initio jet training base at Portage does not have three air routes around. They have three sides free. There are also other differences. On practically every point that is relevant there is quite a sharp distinction to be drawn. I must say I was quite concerned about the matter when it was first raised and for that reason I had it looked into very carefully. I do not believe there are other answers I can usefully add at the moment at the second reading stage. I will answer particular questions in committee if that is agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Charges for use of facilities or services.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister one question. Has this bill any application to airports owned by municipalities that have received grants for their construction and development from the federal government?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I might first answer the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers. As I understand his question, he wanted to know how much money the crown will have to refund as a result of the decision to cancel the route facility fee by

Aeronautics Act
reason of some question being raised as to its validity. The amount to be refunded is about $1 million.
A question was asked also as to the number of companies involved. Actually, because of the way the accounts are kept and the fact there are other charges credited against some of these charges, it involves some 213 separate accounts. This answer, perhaps, is not very helpful but I should point out that in a good many cases it is just a matter of checking out the accounts and very little is involved by way of refund.


Léon Balcer: Is the purpose of the new section simply to legalize the position of the department? Is it the intention of the department to use the authority of this section to carry on the charge of $64 by way of route facility fees?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would make it possible to do this; it grants the authority. The government would have to take a decision of course to make these charges under this authority, but it does grant such authority.
I wonder if the hon. member for Kootenay West would repeat his question?


Léon Balcer: May I just ask one last question on the same subject? Is it the intention of the department to charge the $64 from now on?


George James McIlraith: It has not been decided yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just wish to ask the minister this question. Has the first section of this bill any application to airports owned by municipalities which have received grants from the federal government for their construction and improvement?


George James McIlraith: No, it is only applicable to federally owned airports.


Erik Nielsen: I did not mention aircraft parking fees, Mr. Chairman, as the minister thought I had. Since he has raised the subject, may I say that I do not believe aircraft parking can be compared to the parking of automobiles. This is, of course, one of the nuisances, the imposition of a fee for parking an aircraft on a D.O.T. airport. You cannot draw an analogy between an airplane and an automobile in this respect. They are just as different as night and day. In the first place, the main reason an airplane remains located on an airport is that it must have a large area of ground on which to land. Then, the aircraft, due to its design is not capable of being driven down city streets or highways. In effect, it is forced to remain at the airport. The aircraft owner has not any choice. The automobile owner has scores of

alternative places in which to leave his car, but his own property is the most common place.
The average Canadian taxpayer pays for many facilities which are constructed with the use of public funds. My general plea against the provisions of section 1 of this bill is that while an individual may never expect to use these facilities to which he has contributed, it is not merely those who use the facilities who benefit from them. In this case, the general public benefits from the facilities established at airports. The D.O.T. facilities are for public benefit and the individual is free to use them whenever he has the opportunity. I could refer to such facilities as parks, bridle paths in national parks, playgrounds, museums and so on, which are operated without fees. Airports are such facilities just as much as our highways are. They are part of the public transportation system, just as much as the highways and railways are. The users of airports should no more be subjected to excess tariffs than the users of highways or railways. I would add at this point that this argument applies only to those who use the facilities of D.O.T. airports in a private capacity and not to those operating in a commercial capacity.
Private aircraft owners of this country are just as much taxpayers as any other group of taxpayers. They have, as I said, already contributed to the cost of airports. If we start imposing fees on the users of airports in this country, and not just airports but all facilities, then we are going to have to expect the authorities in the United States and Alaska will impose the same kind of fees. This will only have one result and that will be to curtail private aircraft travel between the two countries. Taken in total it imposes a restriction on the use of some 14,000 to
15,000	private airplanes.
The minister has said it is not the intention of the government to impose the $64 per hour fee on foreign users of air facilities for overflights in Canada. I hope I am correct in that assumption because that is the basis upon which the following remarks are going to be made.


George James McIlraith: In answer to a previous question on that point I said the matter had not yet been decided by the government, that it had not been up for decision.


Erik Nielsen: Then, what the minister is asking the committee to do, because section 1 of the bill does not cover this aspect, is to grant authority so that it will be there in the event the government decides to use it. I think that, in itself, is a very dangerous thing to do. If the government does decide to impose a tariff on foreign air line users who use our

Canadian air facilities on overflights, then I suggest the foreign nation will impose a like tariff on Canadian aircraft using foreign facilities. I believe that was the position before the government changed. I think the minister is aware of this. If this government decides to impose this type of tariff, the United States will retaliate and so will Mexico and the other nations which have terminals used by Canadian air carriers.
I think what we should be doing is encouraging the free intercourse of commercial aviation in the world. Canada should take the lead and operate on such a basis. I do not think there is a move on the part of any other nation to impose such a fee as this tax on facilities which, in effect, are provided for safety in air navigation. This covers the use of the facilities so far as commercial air carriers are concerned. But consider for a moment the effect it would have on the users of some 8,000 private airplanes in the United States, many thousands of whom travel into this country and use our air navigation facilities. This clause would authorize the government to impose such a tariff on those users.
I have already stipulated my reasons for being generally opposed to the idea of placing a tax on facilities supplied by the department for air navigation in Canada. Here I do not speak of a tax for airport parking or a tax for landing at an airport, a tax incidentally which is already supplemented by the one cent per gallon gasoline tax, which is paid by everybody who buys a gallon of gas at an airport in Canada. But I am speaking also of the facilities in the way of radio ranges, weather services, and all the vast range of very desirable facilities provided by the department for the safety of the commercial and private air industry.
I do not think that these facilities should be taxed. The minister has left the implication with the committee that if these taxes are not imposed on the users of D.O.T. facilities, we will not be going ahead with the program for expanding our existing airports and navigation facilities. I do not think that is a valid argument. I think the government has a duty to provide these services for the benefit of all Canadians, and no particular segment of Canadians should be taxed for the purpose of paying for these facilities. The test is not who uses the facilities but who benefits from the establishment of them. My submission is that all Canadians benefit from the establishment and enlargement of these facilities, and therefore all Canadians should pay an equal amount for their construction and maintenance.
Aeronautics Act
Clause 1 in the bill establishes an order in council power which would allow very far-reaching regulations to be made, with no limits to the amount of tax that could be imposed with respect to the use of these facilities. If the government wished, it could make it so difficult, in terms of exacting tariffs on private aircraft users in Canada, that they would be forced to discontinue the use of our major airports and would be forced, if you like, to use farmers' fields. That is the effect of the provision as it now stands. I am not saying the government will abuse it to that extent, but the power is there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question. I have been trying to follow his argument, which I take it, refers to paragraph (b) of the proposed new section 3A. As I read it, the last three words say "at any airport". I fail to follow his line of argument that that included such things as radio ranges and other aids to air navigation. As I understand it, paragraph (a) would apply to facilities for an aircraft on an airport, and paragraph (b) would apply to facilities other than for an aircraft on an airport. I wonder how he relates his argument to a charge on navigational aids.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member would read the whole clause he would see the effect of subclause 2 is to give the minister the power-
-to impose upon the owners or operators, wherever resident, of any aircraft, charges for the availability during any flights of such aircraft within or outside Canada of any facility or service provided by or on behalf of the minister.
That covers every facility provided by the department, and includes radio ranges, beacons, I.L.S. systems, and every system used for navigation in Canada. I do not want to go through a list of them. There is such a wide variety of very excellent services, supplied by the department for the users of airways and air space in Canada, that it would be too lengthy to go through them all, but therein lies the very danger of giving to the minister these very wide powers for the imposition of this type of tax.
In principle it is wrong because the facilities are for the benefit of all Canadians. As such they should be paid for by all Canadians, and a particular segment of Canadians should not be taxed in addition to the taxes they already pay. Second, the minister has left the implication with the committee that the only reason the clause is being passed is to legalize something that has already been done, first of all with reference to the $64 per hour for overflights by foreign carriers, and second with respect to the fees now imposed, and

Aeronautics Act
which I have mentioned, at Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. I ask for an explanation how these fees could be imposed-and I believe they have been in effect since April or May-when this legislation is not yet passed.
For all these reasons I feel that the clause is an extremely undesirable one and gives rise to all sorts of dangerous possibilities. It stifles the growth of the private air industry in Canada, and the minister himself has said that the government has not yet made up its mind as to whether or not the hourly rate will be charged for overflights. It seems to me the power is not necessary in that regard at the moment, and so far as taxing private aircraft owners in Canada for parking, landing, and using air navigation aids, I think it is not a very good principle to establish. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler):
That clause 1 of Bill No. C-117 be struck out.


Mr. Macdonald:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is here. I do not see him.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry. Then the hon. member for Peace River will second it.


William Arnold Peters: Six o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: No, it is not.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair in this particular case will have to consider that the amendment is not in order as it is a direct negative. Even with the clause as it is, the hon. member still has the right to vote against it, which will produce the same result.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I of course accept your ruling. I know I have the right to vote against it, or for it, but as I understand the rules these restrictions against members placing motions before the committee, or before the house, have only to do with increasing the amount of money expenditures which may be imposed on the treasury.


George James McIlraith: You cannot move a negative.


Erik Nielsen: But there is no restriction, at least that I know of, which would prevent a member from making an attempt to reduce the expenditures on the treasury.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not want to argue with the hon. member about this ruling, but I am still of the opinion that a direct negative in this particular case could not be considered as an amendment.


Erik Nielsen: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the house leader to confirm that there will be no sitting of the house tonight. Our party was agreeable to resuming at eight o'clock, but I presume that has fallen by the wayside. Would he repeat the business for tomorrow and Friday, so that it will be in the proper place in Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very regretful that it was not possible to reach agreement to sit this evening; but it was not possible. Therefore we will be adjourning until tomorrow at 2.30. Some time after that when we reach the orders of the day we will call the estimates of the Department of National Defence. If they are concluded this week, and there is still some time left, we will take other departments that have already been discussed. The departments I have in mind at the moment are the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Fane:: What about the Department of Agriculture?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said, departments that had already been discussed. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources would also be available. It might be that the order of those departments might have to be changed because of other circumstances. I endeavoured to see my colleagues in the last few minutes but was not able to do so. That is what I have in mind at present. In any event, it is quite certain as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned.
I think perhaps hon. members will not mind my stressing the fact that unless we get some of these estimates concluded and some of the other business concluded, the prospects for prorogation before Christmas do not look too bright.


William Arnold Peters: Easter would be a good target date.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 5, 1963