1963-06-17

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the entire house. On Friday morning, June 14, there was delivered to a Calgary law office at 9.30 a.m., by the first morning mail delivery, a memorandum entitled "Proposed Changes in Canadian Taxes". The memorandum summarizes the budget, has a budget resolutions index and attached to it are appendices containing the budget resolutions. The whole runs to 25 pages and is under a covering letter from Clarkson, Gordon and Company of Toronto. The envelope containing this material is metered, and the meter stamp bears the date of June 14.
The question which arises is how this material could have been prepared multi-graphed and delivered by ordinary mail to a Calgary office by 9.30 a.m. on Friday after evening. It may be possible that this analysis of the budget could have been prepared, the of the budget could have been prepared, the material mimeographed and the whole dispatched to Calgary, and I presume to every other city in Canada, and then delivered within the times I have given. However, it seems somewhat improbable.
I have checked the T.C.A. schedules to Calgary and find that only one plane leaves Toronto for Calgary after eight o'clock in the evening. This plane is a Vanguard which leaves Toronto at 2.50 a.m. and arrives in Calgary at 6.20 a.m. Calgary time. I have also checked with the post office as to what time a letter would need to be mailed in Toronto to catch this plane and whether it would be delivered on the first mail delivery in Calgary. I was informed that a letter would normally need to be mailed in Toronto by 10 p.m. to get out to the airport in time for this plane. If it were on the plane it might or might not be delivered in Calgary on the first delivery, depending on whether the plane arrived on time and on the volume of mail to be handled, matters which it has been impossible for me to check. In view of this the metered date of June 14 on the letter in question seems odd, particularly as the covering letter bears the date of June 13.
I believe the house is entitled to a full explanation of this matter in view of the questions which have been raised in regard to preserving the secrecy of the budget.
Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): I am hardly in a position to speak on this matter without looking into it, mainly because I am no longer a member of Clarkson, Gordon and Company. I do know that for many, many years that firm, as well as many other firms in all parts of Canada, including all the banks and various other institutions, have received copies of the budget speech after it has been delivered in this house from the offices of the Bank of Canada in their area. I know that this particular firm, Clarkson, Gordon and Company, have in the past made a point of summarizing the main points in the budget that night and issuing them that night or the following morning at an early hour. Apart from that, I am not in a position to say anything about this matter until I make inquiries.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance respecting the matter of urgency raised on a question of privilege by the hon. member for Calgary North, which raised the question that the subject matter of the budget was made available to a legal firm in Calgary on Friday morning following presentation of the budget on Thursday evening. Could the minister explain the mysteries of the electronic age-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but questions of privilege cannot be answered on orders of the day.


Mr. Woolliams:: Particularly put-up questions.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is a question of urgency arising from a question-


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's concern, but I am afraid I must hold to the previous decision.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gordon:: I wonder if I might read a telegram I have just received from Mr. J. R. M. Wilson, who is senior partner of

Question of Privilege
Clarkson, Gordon and Company, and I think in fairness to him this should be read as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Pigeon:: You refused debate.


Mr. Peters:: Why do you want to do it now?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister would care to revert to motions, with the consent of the house; otherwise this is the question period, and it is my duty to keep business strictly on the question period.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to these people I would ask the consent of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the Minister of Finance to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Calgary North said certain things that had a bearing not only on the integrity of the members of my ex-ftrm but indirectly on myself, I should like to be given the opportunity to read this telegram. It is a matter of personal privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I made no implications respecting the minister or anybody else. I stated certain facts which had been sent to me from Calgary because people out there were concerned over the receipt of this document at the time it was received, and in their view it brought into serious question the secrecy of the budget and the documents comprising the white papers and so on attached to the budget. Therefore I thought it was my duty to have the matter cleared up as fast as possible. I presented the facts which had been given to me, which I am absolutely convinced are correct and which I stand behind, and as far as I am concerned the sooner the matter is cleared up the better.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize it is my duty to abide by the rules and try to conduct proceedings according to the rules. Unless the house gives unanimous consent, this is not the time for that type of explanation.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I wonder if I might rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Again?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said he was rising on a question of personal privilege and I believe it has always been a rule of the house that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to indicate whether he had a matter of privilege before

any decision was made about it. My hon. friend also said it arose out of the question of privilege previously raised by the hon. member for Calgary North which Your Honour allowed.
Surely, sir, since the hon. member for Calgary North has now indicated that he feels the matter should be cleared up, and since my hon. friend believes he has a question of personal privilege, the house should hear what my hon. friend has to say before a decision is made by the Chair as to whether or not it is a question of privilege.


Mr. Benidickson:: Be fair to both sides.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already stated what is his question of personal privilege. It seems to me quite apparent that the government, having refused to have a debate on this whole question-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -are now endeavouring, under the guise of personal privilege, to carry on a one-sided debate.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would say that if the whole question is not to be discussed thoroughly, then it ought not to be discussed at all. What the hon. minister has now stated is no question of privilege at all. He is simply trying to reply to the hon. member for Calgary North. He turned down an opportunity to reply to the hon. member, and he has no right to use the orders of the day in order to present one side of the case.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to contain himself for just a minute. Hon. members will realize that the question period is a time for urgent matters to be raised. I realize how important this question is, but in the circumstances, if the house does not give unanimous consent to revert to motions in order that the minister may make a statement, I am obliged to adhere to the rules, which are that questions must be urgent, and these questions asked on orders of the day do not comprise the type of questions which the minister wishes to discuss.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the comments made at the beginnning of this sitting by the hon.

member for Calgary North, could the Minister of Finance give us some explanation or clarification concerning the matter raised by the hon. member?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to answer the question of the hon. member for Lapointe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have just received a telegram from Mr. J. R. M. Wilson, who is the senior partner of Clarkson, Gordon and Company, chartered accountants. The telegram reads as follows:
Budget address and resolutions released by Bank of Canada Toronto to interested parties starting about nine twenty eastern daylight time. We received two copies at nine forty five June 13 and two copies at nine fifty five. On receipt of these our partners reviewed the speech and resolutions and prepared an explanatory memorandum which was typed and multilithed. Concurrently copies of the resolution were photocopied and a copy of these together with the explanatory memorandum were mailed to clients of the firm in pre-addressed envelopes together with a covering letter dated June 13 which had also been prepared in advance after the date of the budget had been announced. First completed memoranda were ready by twelve midnight and first mailing left our office at one fifteen eastern daylight time and delivered to the Malton post office in time to catch flight No. 501 which stops at Winnipeg, Eegina, Calgary and Vancouver, leaving Toronto at two fifty a.m. eastern daylight time. This flight due in Calgary at six twenty a.m. mountain standard time. Procedure followed by our firm was consistent in every respect with that followed for the past several years.
That is signed by J. R. M. Wilson. (Translation):
[Later:)
On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like the house to know that I raised the question because I believe the Minister of Finance, after having risen on a question of privilege, was entitled to it.



MR. PIGEON  ARTICLE IN MAGAZINE

[Stage Direction]
"agriculture"
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns all members of the house.
It has to do with an article which was published as an advertisement by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) in the magazine Agriculture edited by the corporation of agronomists of the province of Quebec. I should like to read now the article, which is very short and which is a message from the minister of (eastern)-that word is between brackets-agriculture, the Hon. Rene Tremblay:
Question of Privilege
Message from the minister of agriculture for (eastern) Canada, the Hon. Rene Tremblay: to the members of the corporation of agronomists of the province of Quebec,
on the occasion of their 1963 annual convention.
As minister of agriculture for (eastern) Canada, I rejoice at this first opportunity I have to offer you my best wishes on the occasion of your annual convention.
First of all, I should like to say that if I had been free to choose a portfolio in the new cabinet, I would have taken agriculture. Indeed, an economist and professor of social sciences cannot but be interested in the agriculture of his country since it is the backbone of the economy. I fully agree with you that the problem of agricultural recovery is becoming more and more important and that the preservation and development of farm, ing in Canada, and in the eastern part of our country especially, calls for our closest attention. Our government has acknowledged the fact since it has, for the first time since confederation, appointed two ministers to look after agriculture. Need I point out that my appointment acknowledges the French fact in Canada?
In order to carry out this enormous task, we need the co-operation of all parties concerned, especially experts in that field such as you, agronomists. Your knowledge, your work and the advice of all agricultural experts of the province of Quebec will be invaluable and necessary to me.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but is it actually necessary that he quote the whole article? What is the point of the question of privilege?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is only one more paragraph, Mr. Speaker. It will take only a minute.
I shall read the reports to keep in touch with the activities of your convention. You can rely on my help to promote our common cause. As for me, I shall rely on your co-operation. Together, we shall succeed.
It bears the signature of Rene Tremblay, minister of agriculture for (eastern) Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this article signed by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane infringes upon the privileges and rights of this parliament, since the hon. member is not the minister of agriculture for (eastern) Canada. I feel that action should be taken by the house against the hon. member, because I consider this as arrogance.

On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane following a question of privilege raised at the beginning of the sitting. Can the minister answer the following question of privilege and tell me whether that article was paid for by himself or by the Department of Agriculture?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the urgency of such a question. If the hon. member will put his question to the order paper I shall be pleased to answer it.

World Fair


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am entitled to ask such a question and the minister has the responsibility to answer it in a straightforward manner. This is dictatorship and arrogance.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not going to be allowed to raise a question of privilege when the Minister of Finance was denied that right?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me for a statement in connection with the organization of the universal exhibition of 1967, and I want to make such a statement today, as I promised him last Friday.
On April 27, 1963, I was, as federal minister, entrusted with the responsibility of organizing the world exhibition of 1967.
Before April 27, 1963, the former administration had taken various steps in this respect.
(1)	The house passed, on December 20, 1962, a bill in view of setting up the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation. The legislation provided that the corporation would plan, organize and administer the exhibition which was to be held on Montreal island, for a period of six months during the year 1967. A commissioner and a deputy commissioner were appointed to that effect.
(2)	Apart from this legislation, a three way agreement was reached in order to choose a site for the exhibition, which basically imposed upon the city of Montreal the responsibility of supplying that site to the World Exhibition Corporation. The site was also to be approved by the federal government in agreement with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec.
(3)	Under the three way agreement concluded on March 25, 1963, Mayor Drapeau recommended, on behalf of the city of Montreal, a site in the St. Lawrence river which would comprise the island of St. Helene, Round island, as well as an enlargement of those islands obtained by dumping All in the river. A third island would, moreover, be built along the seawall of the St. Lawrence seaway, and would be known as Notre Dame island. The total acreage thus created would be 600 acres. The mayor informed the former administration that the provincial government approved the site.

(4)	On March 28, 1963, the former prime minister of Canada advised the mayor of Montreal that the federal government would accept his proposal on condition that the legislation establishing the corporation which stipulated that the exhibition be held on Montreal island be amended, and, second, on condition that the proposed work be approved under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act when detailed plans were available.
Unofficial discussions, which began on April 24, were then held between officials of the federal government and representatives of the city of Montreal and their consultants on a complete study of the proposal.
On April 25, the Department of Public Works received from the director of public works of the city of Montreal a request for a preliminary agreement regarding the filling up of the "A" area, which is that section of the site connecting Round island to St. Helen's island.
Following that request, a meeting took place in Montreal on May 1, which was attended by federal officials of the Department of Public Works, of the Department of Transport, of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, of the national harbours board and their consultants, in order to reconsider the proposition.
During the meeting, some technical questions were directed to the representatives of the city of Montreal about the possible effects of the planned construction on the chosen site. The city provided information on the program of studies of scale models and other technical studies being carried out. Together with federal officials, the city has established a plan of action in order to be able to supply as soon as possible the technical data and a detailed plan.
It was imperative to reach a prompt decision, even if only temporary, so that the international bureau of exhibitions might receive by May 14 a plan elaborate enough to enable it, if it saw fit, to choose Montreal as the site of the 1967 exhibition.
Meetings were held on May 9, in Ottawa, with Mayor Drapeau, who told the federal government that the city of Montreal would be able to prepare the site and to give it over to the corporation on June 30, 1964.
During those discussions with the mayor of Montreal it was clearly established that, should the proposed site be accepted, the city of Montreal would see to it that the work would not impede navigation on the river and would fully comply with the regulations set out in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
After that meeting and other discussions, and in view of the fact that a report had to be submitted to the international bureau in

Paris on May 12, 1963, I advised Mayor Drapeau, on behalf of the federal government, on May 10, 1963, that we accepted the site on the conditions mentioned in the telegram sent by the former prime minister on March 28.
I attended the meeting of the international bureau in Paris with the commissioner general and other members of the corporation as well as Mayor Drapeau, at which time the project concerning the site of the exhibition was submitted.
On May 17, we agreed to grant the city of Montreal prior consent concerning the filling up of section "A", between St. Helen's island and Round island.
It is important to note that the prior consent granted in connection with section "A", bears on works that the city of Montreal had thought of carrying out before the world fair, and it was established that such works would not become a hazard to navigation or have any effect on the water level.
Federal officials and municipal representatives met to examine the results of model and other engineering studies undertaken by the city. The last meetings were held on June 11 and 12. It is yet too soon to tell the final results of those studies. The city of Montreal is at present considering the whole problem and we shall shortly receive, I hope, a detailed plan covering not only this site but also work connected with the site, such as source of backfilling materials, various items of required machinery and equipment etc., in order to ensure that the site will be ready by June 30, 1964 and that such works will not be a hazard to navigation on the St. Lawrence river or the seaway.
I intend to call a general meeting of all parties concerned with the 1967 world fair, such meeting to be held here in Ottawa in the first week of July; the parties concerned are the federal government's departmental committee, the provincial minister responsible for the fair, the mayor of Montreal, and the fair commissioners. At that time we shall have received additional information from the consulting engineers.
Once the preliminary work is completed, I intend to report to the house from time to time on the progress of the project, because this undertaking is national in its scope and concerns all Canadians.
I hope, if and when it is possible, to invite a group of members to Montreal to see the works and the master plan for the fair.
(Text):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Defence
World Fair
Production a question arising out of the statement made to us today by the Minister of Public Works regarding the location of the world fair in Montreal. In view of the fact that the Minister of Defence Production is quoted in today's papers as giving a much more definitive position with regard to the location of this fair, would he tell us whether he has issued a statement relating to a cost of $80 million for the Isle Notre Dame site and whether he has also indicated to Montreal newspapers that it is almost a sure thing that site will not be proceeded with?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I have issued no statement nor given any formal interview. The remarks which appeared in the newspaper were as the result of a few off the cuff and, I may as well admit, ill advised observations. As I mentioned to another hon. member a few moments ago, the spokesman for the federal government is the Minister of Public Works, and what he says stands.

On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production.
Is it true that the minister stated, during an interview over the week end, that the project calling for the establishment of the world exhibition on the St. Lawrence might have to be called off because of the excessive costs involved?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. In my opinion, the Minister of Public Works is, generally speaking, the only spokesman of the government in that respect and he has already made a statement in that connection today.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Defence Production.
Does the minister agree with his colleague's statement made this afternoon regarding this question?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been impressed with the evidence which has been presented to me in numerous reports concerning the increasing lung cancer death

Health and Welfare
rate in Canada and the serious health problem that is posed by this disease. There is scientific evidence that cigarette smoking is a contributory cause of lung cancer, and that it may also be associated with chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease.
Health agencies, including the Department of National Health and Welfare, have a duty to inform the public about the risk to health connected with cigarette smoking. It seems to me that special efforts should be made to dissuade children and young people from acquiring the habit.
In initiating a program directed to the reduction or elimination of this health hazard it will be essential, if the best possible results are to be achieved, for the Department of National Health and Welfare to work in close co-operation with provincial health and other departments, voluntary health agencies, professional associations and other groups concerned with this problem. It has therefore been decided to call an early conference to consider this matter, and I am writing to interested groups inviting them to meet with me in Ottawa. Invitations will go to the provinces through the provincial ministers of health. In addition, professional and voluntary health agencies interested in this matter will be invited to attend, as well as representatives of the tobacco industry and growers.
It is hoped that at this conference there will be a full discussion of the evidence linking cigarette smoking with lung cancer and other conditions, and that proposals can be made for a positive and effective program regarding this problem.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the lady Minister of National Health and Welfare and I apologize for not giving notice. My question is based on the statement the hon. lady made to the house this morning with respect to the conference concerning the unhealthy habit of cigarette smoking. Is the minister in a position to assure the house as a result of conferences with her officials that pipe smokers can continue to enjoy their pipes without any damage to their health?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I assure my hon. and well-beloved friend that he may continue to live in that particular form of sin to which he has been accustomed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it

the intention of the lady minister to join this group?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I assume my hon. friend is speaking of the group which smokes pipes. I suggest to my hon. friend that there are still other ways in which one might use this noxious weed, but it is my intention so far as my resolve will support me, to do away with the use of tobacco entirely.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I ask a
supplementary question on another aspect of the use of tobacco? I should like to ask the hon. lady if she eschewed all these aspects or if she was an admirer of Rawhide on the radio in the mornings?



TOBACCO


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-75, to restrain the use of tobacco.
He said: If I may say so, I think it is a good omen for the possible acceptance of this bill that its introduction should follow so closely on the statement just made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In my opinion that statement was a very fine one. Not only that, but the bill is being introduced into the house on the very day on which, I understand, the hon. minister has given up smoking for life.
The purpose of this bill is to protect the consumer from being deceived or misled as to the character or safety of tobacco products. The effect of the measure would be to repeal the present act of 1908, an act to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons, and to make the provisions of that act part I of this intended new act.
Part II of the new act will give the governor in council power to regulate the labelling, packaging and advertising of tobacco products. It is intended as a basis for the compulsory and, I hope, bilingual listing of tobacco product ingredients on all packages of tobacco products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3 (from the Senate), to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Thompson: 1.	What has been the average price paid for sugar (a) to the producer (b) by the consumer, during the past six months?
2.	Does the government contemplate taking action to prevent Canadian domestic food prices being unduly influenced by world market trends?
Questions


Mr. Pepin:: 1. (a) Final information is not yet available on payments to producers for sugar beets delivered from the 1962 crop. Sugar companies pay an initial payment per ton of beets at delivery time and interim payments as the crop is processed and sold. The total payment is based upon sugar content of the beets and the amount sugar companies receive for refined sugar. In addition the agricultural stabilization board of the Canada Department of Agriculture is authorized to make payments to bring average prices up to previously announced figures.
(b)	Price of sugar in Canada, by months, November 1962 to April 1963:
(All prices in Canadian dollars)
Sugar, Raw,	Sugar, Granulated	Sugar, Granulatedc.i.f. Montreal	f.o.b. Refinery	Retail StoresMonth	$ per cwt.	$ per cwt.	c. per lb.1962:	November	5.12	8.10	9.7December	5.74	8.75	10.31963:	January	7.22	10.20	11.1February	7.86	10.95	12.7March	8.20	11.29	13.2April	9.61	12.55	14.22. This is a matter of	government policy	behalf of the crown in respect of such prop-	which	will be announced	if and when such	erty not immediately	required for publica situation arises.	purposes.


TENDERS FOR LAND LEASE, MOUNTAIN PRISON, AGASSIZ, B.C.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is any land of the mountain prison at Agassiz, B.C. at present on lease for haying, pasturing or other purposes, or are any such leases in process of negotiation?
2.	If so, was all the land leased or in process of being leased put up for public tender?
3.	If public tenders were not called or are not to be called, why is the policy of calling tenders not followed?


Mr. Macdonald:: 1. (a) No land is at present on lease.
(b)	In 1962 $200 was paid for the standing crop of hay on the land. The payment was accepted rather than allow the hay to be wasted.
(b)	The farm of the person with whom the Department of Public Works is currently negotiating for the lease of the land, abuts on the property in question. The prospective lessee has been carefully screened as to the purposes to which the land is to be put and, also, as to any possible connection with, or sympathy for, the Sons of Freedom movement. The penitentiary service feels, in any case where land becomes surplus to requirements, and particularly in the sensitive area adjoining the Doukhobor prison, that it must reserve the right to decide who will be allowed to lease such land.
The penitentiary service has therefore requested the Department of Public Works to negotiate the proposed lease agreement on this basis.
(c)	Negotiations are now going forward for the lease of this property for pasturing.
2.	No.
3.	Public tenders were not called and are not to be called for two reasons:
(a)	Under part XIV, section 07.1 of the treasury manual of financial authorities and procedures, the Minister of Public Works has a blanket authorization to execute leases on


FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many federal correctional institutions are there in Canada?
2.	What are the names of the wardens of each of these institutions, and how long have they been in their positions?
3.	What, if any, are their professional qualifications?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. 26.

Questions
3. Professional qualifications (concluded):
Weeks, J. H.	Royal navy 1914-1924;
Canadian army overseas 1942-44; 33 years penitentiary service.
Hall, T. W.
Hamilton, B. C.
DeVarennes, J. A. McMaster, H.
Lalonde, R.
17 years service-Canadian militia;
6	years military service W.W. 2 (major);
28	years penitentiary service including
7	years as warden, Saskatchewan penitentiary.
6	years housemaster-Borstal institution, United Kingdom;
7	years navy service;
3 years sup't of prison-Mauritius;
1	year It. commander R.C.N. headquarters;
2	years penitentiary service headquarters.
6 years Canadian army (active) W.W. 2;
17 years penitentiary service.
3	years R.C.M.P.;
1 year chief of police;
29	years penitentiary service.
3 years Canadian army (active) W.W. 2;
17 years penitentiary service.
Dumouchel, J. R. A.	1J years Canadian army (active) W.W. 2;
13 years penitentiary service.
Fortin, J. E. R.	3 years Canadian army (active) W.W. 2;
' a 17 years penitentiary service.
Mills, H. E.	6 years active service W.W. 2-rank of major;
Wlijjmy; 4 years penitentiary service.
Reid, M. J. Halfhide, D. J. Bell, H. S. Orlesky, N. E. Jacobson, L. K.
Collins, H. A. Wilson, R. A.
5	years Canadian army (active);
17 years penitentiary service.
6	years military service-rank of major;
14	years penitentiary service.
3 years military service;
10	years penitentiary service.
5 years military service;
19 years penitentiary service.
Diploma in agriculture-University of Saskatchewan; 3 years navy service;
13 years penitentiary service.
11	years military service;
15	years penitentiary service.
24 years penitentiary service.


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many times has corporal punishment
been used each year	for the past	ten years in
federal institutions?		
2. How many prisoners have had		such corporal
punishment more than	once?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Awarded by	Awarded by
1. Fiscal year	outside	warden'sending	court	courtMarch 1954	24	22March 1955	9	83March 1956	39	38March 1957	24	34March 1958	36	13March 1959	17	18March 1960	7	2328902-5-78	
Awarded by Awarded by
Fiscal	year	outside	warden':ending	court	courtMarch	1961	12	63March	1962	21	4March	1963	14	602.	March	1954	nil	1March	1955	13March	1956	1March	1957	3March	1958	nilMarch	1959	1March	1960	3March	1961	1March	1962	nilMarch	1963	1
Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH EXPENDITURES, CANYON CITY, B.C.
Mr. Howard: For each fiscal year since 1952, how much money has been spent by the Indian affairs branch in the Indian village of Canyon city. British Columbia?


Mr. Munro:: 1952-53	$ 3,005.76
1953-54	3,087.12
1954-55	4,534.40
1955-56	3,980.33
1956-57	7,453.42
1957-58	5,783.59
1958-59	7,712.58
1959-60	10,284.37
1960-61	16,948.06
1961-62	32,257.02
1962-63	20,954.10
Total	$116,000.75


GRAIN STORAGE COSTS
Mr. Howard: Since 1940, how much money has been paid by what departments or agencies to grain companies for the storage of grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Since 1940 the Canadian wheat board has paid $617,947,638 for the storage of grain. Of this total, the board recovered from the consolidated revenue fund under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the sum of $187,947,909. During the period 1939-45 a program under the authority of the agricultural supplies board was administered by the Department of Agriculture which made available reserve stocks of feed grains in eastern Canada for distribution during the winter and early spring. Storage charges during the holding periods were paid, but these cannot be identified, as a breakdown of expenditure for the complete program is not available from the records.


MAE TAK KING
Mr. Howard: Was one Mak Tak King, alias Wong Doo Chung, (a) arrested and (b) charged under section 16 of the Immigration Act and, if so, when, what was the nature of the charge, and the disposition thereof?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a) Yes, arrested by the R.C.M. Police at Vancouver, B.C., on August 20, 1962, under the provisions of section 16 of the Immigration Act for the reason that he was an illegal entrant.
(b)	No charges were laid but he appeared before a special board of inquiry held by the immigration branch at Vancouver, B.C., on August 21, 1962, which was adjourned until September 11, 1962 and Mak Tak King was

released. On September 11, 1962 the inquiry was reopened and adjourned sine die.


CASES CONSIDERED BY IMMIGRATION INQUIRY BOARDS
Mr. Mather: How many cases have been considered by immigration branch boards of inquiry since January 1, 1960, and of these (a) how many cases were appealed (b) how many persons were allowed to remain in Canada (c) what are the usual reasons for deportation?


John Carr Munro: From January 1,	1960, to
December 31, 1962, 2,862 persons were ordered to be deported from Canada following an inquiry under the Immigration Act. This number represents only those persons who were within Canada at the time of the inquiry and does not include persons ordered deported on their arrival at a port of entry seeking admission to Canada.
(a)	Appeals were entered on behalf of 1,638 of these persons.
(b)	Deportation was not carried out in the case of 889 of these persons; some were allowed to remain permanently, others temporarily under surveillance and others because deportation in their case was impratical.
(c)	The most common causes for deportation in these cases are: (i) ship desertion (ii) criminality, (iii) illegal entry, (iv) violation of duration or conditions of stay as non-immigrant.


Mr. Siefanson: 1.	Did the B.B.G. approve a C.B.C. application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel, and a change of antenna site, of station CBWT, Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If so, when was approval given and what changes are proposed in regard to video, audio, channel and antenna?
3.	What site was chosen for the location of the new antenna; when was the property purchased, from whom, and at what cost?
4.	Were any other sites considered?
5.	(a) What is the total estimated cost of the project? (b) what is the estimated cost of the building proposed at the new site?
6.	When is this work scheduled to be completed and change of channel to be effective?
7.	What is the estimated cost to viewers for changes of antenna resulting from change of channel (a) on a per house basis (b) total cost for the interlake area (c) total cost for Manitoba?
8.	Is there any guarantee that these changes will improve television service for the interlake area especially for areas like Riverton, Arborg, Fisher Branch, Hodgson, Eriksdale and Ashern (Ashem, at present, gets neither Winnipeg nor Yorkton) ?
9.	Should these changes fail to bring about an improvement in television viewing for the interlake area, what action will the B.B.G. or the C.B.C. take?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the board of broadcast governors and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. Yes.

2.	The application was for an increase in effective radiated power from 57,800 watts ERP (video), 34,700 watts ERP (audio), to 100,000 watts ERP (video), 50,000 watts ERP (audio), a change in channel from channel 3-to channel 6-and an increase in the effective height above average terrain from 196 feet to 1,027 feet. The board's recommendation for the approval of this application was contained in its public announcement of April 18, 1962.
3.	L.S.D.I., section 27, township 9, range 1, W.P.M. near Starbuck, Man., acquired by certificate of title dated March 5, 1963, from Gordon Miller Livingston and Ann Livingston for the sum of $8,000.
4.	Yes, and the most suitable site acquired.
5.	(a) $1,267,000. This estimated amount covers the combined move and change of channels for CBWT and CBWFT.
(b) As tenders for construction of the building are about to be called it could be prejudicial to the public interest to disclose this information at this time.
6.	The target date for service on the new channel is October 1964.
7.	In areas where outside type antennas are used it is unlikely that changes will be required, other than reorientation in some cases, (a) one service call, (b) statistics are not available to the corporation, on the number of homes with T.V. antennas, (c) same as part (b).
8.	It is anticipated that some areas of the interlake region will receive an improved service, but it is not possible to guarantee reception in specific areas.
9.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intends to conduct a survey of reception in the area following the completion of the proposed changes to CBWT. The results of this survey will be used to determine what action if any should be taken.


QUALIFICATIONS FOR SHIP INSPECTOR, CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. Smith: Was it considered necessary that a ship inspector, civil service competition No. 63-238, should possess a certificate of competency "valid in the United Kingdom or any other certificate recognized by reciprocal government agreement as being equivalent", and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Caniin:: It is considered necessary that a ship inspector 2 (machinery) possess a Canadian certificate of competency valid in the United Kingdom or any other certificate recognized by reciprocal government agreement as being equivalent.
In the performance of his duties as outlined in the Canada Shipping Act, a ship inspector 2 (machinery) is required to inspect internationally registered vessels, and 28902-5-78J
Questions
to examine candidates for marine engineer's certificates. The ship inspector must, therefore, possess the highest Canadian certificate himself.
A Canadian first class certificate valid in the United Kingdom is granted under conditions of examination and qualification required for a comparable certificate issued in the United Kingdom. Such certificates are accepted by both countries under a reciprocal agreement embodied in the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement. These certificates are of the highest grade issued in Canada and candidates for them must have comprehensive experience and a sound technical education in order to qualify.


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION, FLIN FLON, MAN.
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What is the amount of the annual budget of the C.B.C. television station in Flin Flon, Manitoba?
2.	What is the amount of the operational maintenance costs?
3.	What is the amount of the operational program costs?
4.	What were the proposed rental fees of the Manitoba telephone system?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1,	2, and 3. The C.B.C. television station at Flin Flon is coupled with that at The Pas. They were planned as a complex and are operated jointly using television recordings. The cost of television recordings for nonconnected stations is a national program charge, and is not included in the operating cost of these stations. There are no local program originations at either station.
A staff of four people is based at Flin Flon to handle the television recordings and to provide maintenance service for both stations. Aside from the salaries of these four employees operating costs are confined to those for tube replacements, light, power, etc.
4.	As to the amount proposed to be charged by the Manitoba telephone system to the corporation for microwave network service to Flin Flon, the provision of this information could adversely affect the corporation in the competitive business in which it is engaged. It can be stated, however, that the proposed annual rental was substantially higher than the annual costs involved in the present system of operation.
(Translation):


MOUNTED POLICE PATROL OF PLAINS OF ABRAHAM
Mr. Laprise: What is the strength of the R.C.M.P. guard on the graham (a) during the tourist season " 'he day'i)Te, <">
at night (b) outside the tourist season (i) in the daytime (ii) at night?

Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The R.C.M.P. guard on the plains of Abraham includes eight members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires and one R.C.M.P. officer as supervisor. Those officers are on duty from April 15 to December 1, with the following schedule:
Plains of Abraham: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 1 member of the Canadian corps of commissionaires, 4 p.m. to 12 midnight, 2 members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires; 12 midnight to 8 a.m., 2 members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires.
Promenade: 12 noon to 6 p.m., 1 member of the Canadian corps of commissionaires; 6 p.m. to 2 a.m., 2 members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires.
No R.C.M.P. guard is provided from December 2 to April 14 since the park is closed during that period.


POST OFFICE ADDITION, CHAPAIS, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Does the government intend to enlarge the post office (a) at Chibougamau (b) at Chapais?


Mr. Badanai:: (a) Yes, probably next year.
(b) Yes, it is hoped to complete an addition to the Chaplais post office before the end of the current fiscal year.
(Text):


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO HOSPITAL CHIBOUGAMAU, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the government contributed financially to the construction of the hospital at Chibougamau and, if so, what is the amount of that contribution?
2.	When did the construction of the hospital begin, and how long has it been at the disposal of the local population?


Mr. Haidasz:: 1. A project was recently received from the province of Quebec requesting assistance under the terms of the hospital construction grant on behalf of the construction of a hospital at Chibougamau, P.Q.
A calculation of federal assistance will be completed at an early date.
2.	When the project was submitted it indicated that construction of the hospital had begun in 1961 and was expected to reach completion early in 1963.


AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, EDMONTON
Mr. Thompson: With respect to the new air terminal building at Edmonton international airport-(a) what was the amount of each successful tender (b) what was the total tendered price of this building (c) how many change orders have been approved since contracts were let (d) what is the total increase in cost as a result of these change orders
(e)	on what basis will the architect's fees be paid
(f)	what will be the total amount of the architect's fees?


Jean-Charles Cantin: (a) Amount of each successful tender:
Air terminal: Foundations and ground floor and temporary heating plant, $584,287.00; structural steel and steel decking, $846,200.00; superstructure, general works and equipment, $8,207,531.90.
Heating plant: Terminal services building (heating and auxiliary power plant), $950,000.00; high temperature water heaters, $95,252.00.
(b)	Total accepted tender price for items listed in (a) $10,683,270.90.
(c)	Number of change orders approved to date on five contracts listed under (a)-129.
(d)	Total increase in cost to date, $72,775.81.
(e)	The consulting architects are being paid a fee of 5 per cent of the actual cost of construction plus certain extra inspection costs and for preliminary work.
(f)	The total estimated fees will be $650,000, inclusive of items listed under (e) above.


RESTON, MAN., POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Dinsdale: Is it the intention of the government to proceed this year with the construction of a new post office at Reston, Manitoba, and, if so, when will tenders be called?


Hubert Badanai: This new post office is under consideration for construction during the present fiscal year.
^SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS ON ACTING BASIS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long is it possible for a person to hold a senior post in the civil service on an acting basis?
2.	When a senior servant holds a post on an acting basis for more than a year, what are the review procedures with regard to this kind of situation?
3.	In the case of the recent acting director of the companies branch, what recommendations, if any, did the C.S.C. make to the government, initially, and during the acting status?
4.	What minister of the crown approved the appointment on a continuing basis on May 17, 1963 as referred to by the Secretary of State on Thursday last?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions have been furnished to me by the civil service commission and I am merely communicating them to the house.
1.	The length of time a person may receive acting pay in the civil service is governed by section 13 of the Civil Service Act and section 38 (2) of the regulations made under that act.
2.	An acting pay period does not exceed 12 months except under conditions set forth in section 38 (2) of the civil service regulations referred to above.
3.	None. It is not the function of the civil service commission to make recommendations

but to make appointments to vacant positions departments wish to have filled.
4.	The appointment was made by the civil service commission on May 17, 1963.
* COMPETITION NO. 59-P-1d121


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Who were the members of the examining board for competition No. 59-P-1D121?
2.	If the examining board interviewed the candidates in this competition (a) how many written applications were received (b) how many applicants were considered for personal interview (c) how many were actually interviewed, and what were their names, educational qualifications, and experience (d) what notice, if any, was given to the people interviewed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been furnished the answers by the civil service commission and am communicating them to the house.
1.	P. R. Powers, civil service commission (chairman of the board). Charles Stein, Q.C., then under secretary of state. W. R. Jackett, Q.C., then deputy minister of justice. J. F. MacNeill, Q.C., clerk of the Senate.
2.	(a) Eleven.
(b)	Seven applicants were considered for interview.
(c)	and (d) Seven candidates were interviewed, but since the civil service commission was notified by the Secretary of State Department that the latter did not wish to fill this particular position at this time, the competition was not completed and all the candidates were notified in writing to this effect.


TRAINING OF CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Brewin: Are guards or others employed for custodial duties in Canadian penitentiaries required to take any training after their appointment and, if so, what is the nature of their training?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Guards in Canadian
penitentiaries receive, on appointment, an average of two weeks induction training. During the first six months of service, a recruit is closely supervised by his immediate superiors and by the staff training officer. At each institution, in-service training is conducted and comprises approximately 40 hours of training, each year, by way of group and individual discussions, staff conferences, classroom instruction and range firing practices. In addition, training courses are held on a continuing basis at the penitentiary staff colleges.


MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC WORKS VESSELS, PORT BURWELL, ONT.
Mr. McBain: Is the government giving immediate consideration to maintaining in operation after 1963 public
Questions
works dredge No. 116 and the tug Hercules now operating out of Port Burwell, Ontario?


Hubert Badanai: No. The department is planning to dispose of dredge No. 116 and the tug Hercules in the fall of 1963. This is in accordance with our policy of gradually reducing the number of federally owned dredges in operation and increasing the proportion of federal dredging carried out by private contractors. This unit is 58 years old and there would be considerable risk in keeping it in operation. It has been used only in safe waters for some time.
I should mention that disposal of the dredge is being delayed until the fall so that the community of Port Burwell and the crew of the dredge will have had advance notice of one full season in order to make other plans.


DREDGING, PORT STANLEY AND PORT BURWELL, ONT.
Mr. McBain: Are tenders being called by the Department of Public Works, or will they be called in 1963, for dredging at (a) Port Stanley, Ontario (b) Port Burwell, Ontario?


Hubert Badanai: (a) This will depend on the results of a survey to be carried out immediately.
(b) Yes. Tenders will be advertised early next month.


TORONTO
Mr. Scott: 1.	During the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963 were any requests made to the government by the city of Toronto for financial assistance in the construction of the Toronto Olympic pool at the corner of Woodbine avenue and Eastern avenue in the city of Toronto?
2.	If so, how many such requests were made, by whom were they made, and briefly, what was the nature of such requests, and what replies were given by the government?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. Nil.


RUNWAY 07-25  COST OF REBUILDING
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of Transport have any engineering or architectural plans for expansion of the air terminal building and rebuilding of runway 07-25 and associated runways before April 9, 1963, and, if so, were there any cost estimates?
2.	If there were no cost estimates, when were the plans drawn up, and the cost figures determined?
3.	What are the cost figures?


Jean-Charles Cantin: It is assumed that the question refers to lakehead airport.
1.	The department had plans before April 9, 1963, for the alterations and extension of the existing air terminal building and also for strengthening of runway 07-25.

Questions
2.	There were cost estimates which have been included in the 1963/64 construction program.
3.	(a) The estimated cost of the alterations and extension of the air terminal building is $735,000.
(b) The estimated cost of rebuilding runway 07-25 and associated work is $900,000.


CIVILIAN AIR FACILITIES, MOOSE JAW, SASK.
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	What arrangements have been made or are under way with the city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, for the relocation of civilian aircraft facilities to replace the present municipal air base which is being taken over by the R.C.A.F. station on July 1 to provide additional space for pilot training in CL-41 jet aircraft?
2.	What were the arrangements under which the city of Moose Jaw occupied hangar space and had landing rights at the R.C.A.F. station?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No arrangements have been made for the relocation of the civilian aircraft facilities at Moose Jaw airport. The city of Moose Jaw's representations of June 5 have been received by the Department of Transport and must be co-ordinated with the Department of National Defence.
2.	The city of Moose Jaw occupied the hangar space at Moose Jaw airport under lease from the Department of Transport and was granted a public airport licence covering the use of the airport.


USE OF SASKATCHEWAN CLAY PRODUCTS BRICKS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received a letter from the city of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, with regard to why bricks made by the Saskatchewan Clay Products of Estevan are not specified as being acceptable for use in federal building construction?
2.	Will the minister consider modification of specifications to include Saskatchewan Clay Products bricks for all federal construction projects in the province of Saskatchewan?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


ARDA PROJECTS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What projects have been undertaken in Saskatchewan under ARDA?
2.	What is the nature of such projects?
3.	What is the (a) federal government's share of these projects (b) provincial government's share?
4.	Have requests been received from the province of Saskatchewan to undertake other projects and, if so (a) what are the locations of such projects (b) what is the nature of each project?


Mr. Beer:: 1, 2 and 3. Twenty three projects have been approved in the province of Saskatchewan under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. The projects, the nature of each and the share of the estimated cost to be borne by the federal and provincial governments for each project are as follows:
Description and nature of project	Federal share	Provincial shareAcquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the fielding community pasture in the R.M. of Mayfield	$ 49,083.00	$46,417.00Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Calder community pasture east of the city of Yorkton	$109,117.00	$88,683.00Development of marginal agricultural lands as the St. Walburg community pasture in the R.M. of Greenfield	$ 44,300.00	$44,300.00Acquisition of marginal and submarginal agricultural lands for public recreational purposes at Last Mountain lake.	$ 13,200.00	$13,200.00Acquisition of marginal and submarginal agricultural lands for public recreational purposes on Buffalo Pound lake, north of Moose Jaw	$ 45,567.00	$91,133.00Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Big River community pasture, northwest of Prince Albert	$ 51,700.00	$51,300.00Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Grill Lake community pasture, south of Unity	$ 87,773.00	$55,527.00Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Whitebeech community pasture in the R.M. of Livingston	$ 80,317.00	$68,083.00
[Mr. Cantin.J

Questions
Description and nature of project Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Togo community pasture northeast of Yorkton	Federal share $ 66,050.00	Provincial share $53,050.00Acquisition of marginal agricultural lands and their development as the Pontrilas community pasture in the R.M. of Nipawin	$ 39,850.00	$38,850.00A land capability study to compile a broad map of Saskatchewan separating the various physiographic areas into general capability categories	$ 18,400.00	NilThe development of a comprehensive inventory of agricultural resources	$	19,000.00	$19,000.00An analysis of hydrometric stations to increase the efficiency of the present hydrometric network	$	4,500.00	NilDrainage of agricultural lands of the Petaigan Basin and Moose Range in northeastern Saskatchewan	$ 31,327.00	$31,328.00Drainage of agricultural lands in the Aylsham Basin of the Nipawin Conservation and Development Area	$	15,652.00	$15,653.00Drainage of agricultural lands in the Goyer flood control project	$	2,302.00	$ 2,303.00Drainage of agricultural lands in the Kipling marsh flood control project	$	7,035.00	$ 7,035.00Drainage of agricultural lands in the Lenvale flood control project	$	692.00	$ 693.00Drainage of agricultural lands in the Arborfield flood control project	$	2,222.00	$ 2,223.00The planting of trees as field and roadside shelterbelts in the southern half of the province	$	13,677.00	$27,323.00A socio-economic research study to obtain data describing the inventory of resources under the control of farmers in the Rollo Park, Garrick, and Broadview areas	$	12,300.00	$12,300.00A study to provide information for soil capability inventory, economic land classification, and land-use planning within Census Division No. 16	$	6,100.00	NilUniversity of Saskatchewan Centre for community studies seminar on ARDA	$	500.00	Nil4.	Yes, six project proposals are under consideration. (a) and (b): 1. A research project respecting farm cash income for each of the 294 rural municipalities. 2. A research project involving a study to classify those settled areas which are suitable for wildlife recreational development purposes. 3. A groundwater exploration study of a portion of the southern area of the province, the exact scope having not yet been determined. 4. A community and economic study for rural development purposes in the area of Census Division No. 16, approximately north and west of Saskatoon. 5. The acquisition of marginal and other related agricultural lands at Saskatchewan Landing for the development of a provincial park. 6. The development of marginal
farm lands north of Prince Albert for the Clearwater Grazing Co-operative.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Beaule: 1.	What was the total amount of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund during the past
year?
2.	What was the employers' share?
3.	What was the employees' share?
4.	What was the government's share?
5.	What was the total amount of benefits paid out of the unemployment insurance fund during the past year (a) for the whole of Canada (b) for each province?
6.	What was the number of claimants in each
province?

Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. $340,546,345.
2.	$141,889,012.
3.	$141,889,012.
4.	$56,768,321.
5. (a) $403,191,168.
(b) Newfoundland	$	20,873,109Prince Edward Island	$	3,408,194Nova Scotia	$	21,293,048New Brunswick	$	19,946,649Quebec	$	123,026,283Ontario	$	117,822,350Manitoba	$	19,550,432Saskatchewan	$	13,103,124Alberta	$	22,179,317British Columbia	$	41,988,662
Note-The revenue and expenditure figures quoted in questions 1 to 5 are for the fiscal year 1962-63. They are interim and therefore subject to year end adjustments.
6.	Claimants reporting to local offices at the end of each month-April 1962-March 1963
Newfoundland	Pr. Ed. Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	QuebecApril/62	27,253	4,826	33,560	32,678	174,620May	9,885	919	14,736	12,386	80,528June	6,678	749	10,181	8,568	66,079July	5,883	819	9,927	8,159	63,101August	5,824	744	10,633	8,709	57,618September	5,783	718	10,183	8,744	60,286October	6,063	880	12,526	10,242	73,359November	14,032	2,504	19,320	17,990	111,469December	32,985	6,013	30,896	31,024	179,327January/63	39,380	7,802	39,971	37,744	208,435February	40,016	8,014	40,947	39,592	221,247March	35,771	7,046	40,059	38,780	215,779Ontario	Manitoba	Sask.	Alberta	B. C.April/62	156,463	29,238	19,061	33,537	53,242May	79,848	12,570	6,669	15,966	30,355June	71,161	9,890	5,010	11,983	24,012July	79,693	8,526	4,482	9,937	21,448August	71,631	7,693	4,164	10,131	21,547September	65,210	8,647	4,277	10,678	23,273October	78,959	11,314	5,941	13,676	31,180November	109,821	18,705	11,641	22,393	46,316December	167,299	28,844	20,046	29,237	66,294January/63	197,795	36,169	25,683	38,165	71,937February	201,519	35,626	25,931	39,079	68,490March	193,995	32,130	23,934	37,619	62,205


ADVISORY COUNCIL ON VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Beaule: 1.	Does the government intend to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act in order to contribute proportionately to the student population of each province?
2.	Are the members of the national advisory council for technical and vocational training appointed by the governor general in council?
3.	Are the representatives of employers and employees designated or suggested by employers' associations and employees' unions?
4.	Are the suggestions of employers' associations and employees' unions in that respect always accepted by the government?
5.	Do the provincial governments designate their own members or are they selected by the federal government?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Amendments to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act will be introduced during the current session

to provide for the measures outlined in my statement in the house on June 10.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	This is ordinarily the case; the government may, however, request additional or alternative nominations.
5.	Representatives of provincial governments are nominated by the provinces.


PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES, ILO CONFERENCE, GENEVA
Mr. Perron: 1.	Did the federal government invite the provincial governments to send representatives to the ILO conference being held in Geneva?
2.	If so, how did the provincial governments reply, and which provincial governments sent observers to that conference?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes, an. invitation was sent to all provincial ministers of labour on December 17, 1962, to send representatives to the ILO 47th session, Geneva, June, 1963.
2.	Most of the provinces while expressing their interest in the conference sent their regrets in being unable to have representatives in attendance this year. The ministers of labour of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and the chairman of the workmen's compensation commission of the province of Quebec are in attendance at the conference at the present time.
public service facilities in national parks


Mr. Mather: Has the federal government any program respecting the construction and operation of suitable motels or other public service facilities in the national parks of Canada located on the route of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, this department is, of course, concerned to see that suitable motels and other public service facilities are available for visitors to the national parks of Canada, whether located on the route of the trans-Canada highway or not. It is the general policy that motels, hotels, cabin developments and restaurants be provided by private enterprise. These will in future increasingly be located in visitor service centres in order better to serve both park visitors and the general travelling public. As the need arises for such facilities the normal procedure is to advertise sites for public bidding, although some exceptions are made; for example, to accommodate businesses displaced by other park development.
Other public service facilities-notably camp grounds, where the demand has grown very greatly in recent years-are provided by the national parks administration. The policy here is simply to attempt to provide facilities as and where required, keeping in mind the importance of keeping inviolate the amenities which brought the visitors to the park in the first place.
I might remind hon. members here, Mr. Speaker, that the enormity of this problem and its importance can best be illustrated when I tell the house that the number of campers in our national parks has increased in the last ten years from 91,000 in 1952 to 634,000 in 1962.


DREDGING, TONEY RIVER AND BAILEY'S BROOK, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to carry out dredging at Toney river and Bailey's brook, Nova Scotia, during the present year?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
Questions


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, SKINNER COVE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out harbour improvements at Skinner Cove, Nova Scotia, during the present year and, if so, what do the improvements include?


Hubert Badanai: Yes. The work will include reconstruction of part of the west pier and dredging the harbour area and approaches where necessary.


WHARF REPAIRS, CAPE JOHN AND RIVER JOHN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out wharf repairs at Cape John and River John, Nova Scotia, during the present year?


Hubert Badanai: Cape John, Nova Scotia, yes River John, Nova Scotia, no.


ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, MACDONALD COVE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to widen and reconstruct the approach road to the wharf at MacDonald's cove, Nova Scotia, during the present year?


Hubert Badanai: No, not at the present time.


APPOINTMENTS TO REVENUE POST OFFICES
Mr. Korchinski: What is the criterion under which an appointment of a postmaster is made in a revenue post office?


Mr. McWilliam:: The Postmaster General appoints revenue postmasters where the annual revenue of the office does not exceed $3,000. The criteria for selection are: (1) Canadian citizenship, (2) residence in the locality served by the post office, (3) adequate educational and other qualifications to perform the duties of the position, (4) ability to furnish accommodation, centrally located (5) priority to applicants who are entitled to the veterans preference and who are otherwise qualified as per 1, 2, 3, 4.
Appointments of postmasters in revenue post offices where the annual revenue exceeds $3,000 per annum are made by the civil service commission as the result of either closed or open competitions.
In the closed competitions, only postal employees may apply and the selection is based on the merit system. For the open competitions, in most cases, only residents of the area served by the post office may apply. However, if it is unlikely that a successful candidate can be found in the area served by the post office the competition would encompass a wider area. The appointment is made on the basis of merit and subject to the statutory preference for veterans.
On occasion there will be an assistant to the postmaster who will have sufficient

Questions
knowledge and experience to merit the appointment without the necessity of a formal competition. The deputy head will make this request to the commission which, if satisfied as to the equity of the case, will make the appointment subject to the appeal of other employees of the post office concerned.


OUTLET POST OFFICE, KINGSTON ROAD, TORONTO
Mr. Scott: Has the government received a request for the placing of an outlet post office for the sale of stamps, etc., on Kingston road in the city of Toronto between Main street and Victoria Park avenue, and, if so (a) by whom were the requests made (b) what was the nature of the government's response to them (c) is the area suitable for the placement of such a post office?


Mr. Denis:: Yes.
(a)	In June, 1960, a request for a sub post office at 1003 Kingston road was made by Mrs. Elizabeth Ketcheson through the intermediary of Mr. R. Hardy Small, M.P.
(b)	It was considered that postal facilities in the area were adequate at that time.
(c)	In view of the time since the application, the situation is being re-examined.


EXPANSION OF FACILITIES, POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the plans for the expansion of the magazine facilities at the Point Edward naval base?
2.	What plans has the government for the expansion of other facilities?


Mr. Hellyer:: 1. It is intended to expand the magazine facilities by constructing four ammunition storehouses, one ammunition laboratory, an access road and improvements to fencing in the magazine area.
2. It is intended to provide bulk storage for ships' bunker fuel and aviation gas with receiving and dispensing lines.


FEED GRAIN FOR B.C. RANCHERS
Mr. Willoughby: What consideration is being given to providing feed grain at equitable prices to interior British Columbia ranchers?


Bruce Silas Beer: Assistance is now provided on the movement of western feed grains to British Columbia feeders. The rate of assistance is the freight cost by the most economical route less $5 per ton. The broad question of feed grains is under review.


SKIDEGATE NARROWS, B.C., DREDGING
Mr. Mather: Is the government considering providing, by dredging, a suitable passage through Skidegate narrows, in the Queen Charlotte islands, B.C., to accommodate fishing vessels in the 70 to 90 foot range enabling them to utilize the herring stocks in that area?


Hubert Badanai: Dredging of some isolated
high spots has been authorized. A channel through Skidegate narrows was dredged in 1955-56 and is adequate for vessels of 70 to 90 foot range at 14 feet of tide or better, although some local knowledge is required to navigate.


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO AGRICULTURE MINISTER
Mr. Madill: 1.	Who is the executive assistant to the minister of agriculture?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What are his qualifications in the field of agriculture?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. D. F. McIntosh.
2.	May 15, 1963.
3.	Family farm in Saskatchewan; diploma in dairy manufacture, University of Manitoba; ten years experience in the dairy industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta; 14 years experience as a director of the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Limited, and for more than half of that period a member of the executive board.
4.	$9,000 per annum.


ARDA PROJECTS, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Blow many, and what are the names of the projects asked for by Alberta under the Agriculture Rehabilitation and Development Act, and what is the total anticipated cost?
2.	What are the respective percentages paid by the federal and provincial governments?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. Six projects have been submitted by the province of Alberta, for consideration under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, involving a total estimated cost of $1,193,595. The names of these projects are:
Irrigated farm development studies, Seven Persons irrigated grazing reserve, Rannock grazing reserve, Wanham grazing reserve, Bow island irrigated grazing reserve, Wetaski-win grazing reserve.
2. The Wanham grazing reserve project only has been approved to date, of which 50 per cent of the cost is to be paid by the federal government and 50 per cent is to be paid by the province of Alberta.


* PAYMENTS UNDER MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Vincent: 1.	How many milk producers are registered, and have drawn the 25 cents per cwt subsidy paid by the federal government during the 1962-63 fiscal year?
2.	What was the total amount paid out in this
respect?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. 65,840 registered milk producers have drawn the 25 cents per cwt.

subsidy paid by the federal government on milk used for manufacturing purposes during the 1962-63 fiscal year.
2.	The total amount paid out in this respect was $13,044,319.


*COST OF NEW MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Vincent: 1.	How many milk producers are eligible for, and will draw the new subsidy at the rate of 30 cents per cwt. during the 1963-64 fiscal year?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of this subsidy?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. As of May 1, 1963, 81,194 producers were registered as eligible for the new subsidy of 30 cents per cwt. on milk used for the manufacture of Cheddar cheese. It is not known how many of these producers will draw the new subsidy as this will depend on their decisions in respect of the type of plant to which they deliver their milk.
2. The estimated cost of this subsidy is $3,850,000.


*COST OF SUBSIDY ON CASEIN
Mr. Vincent: 1.	What is the total estimated cost of the 10 cent subsidy paid by the federal government on
casein?
2.	How many commercial factories manufacturing this product will receive this subsidy?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. Based on last year's production, the estimated total cost of the 10 cent subsidy to be paid by the federal government on casein is $2,220,000.
2. There are 14 commercial factories manufacturing dried casein which are eligible to receive this subsidy.


FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Boutin: 1.	How many applications for farm loans were received from residents of the constituency of Dorchester during 1962, and of these, how many were (a) approved (b) rejected?
2.	What is the total amount of the farm loans approved?
3.	What is the total number, and the amount of the loans approved for each parish in this constituency?
Questions


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. For the municipal county of Dorchester, 13 applications were received.
(a)	8 approved.
(b)	4 rejected before appraisal, 1 after appraisal (total 5).
2.	$103,000-municipal county of Dorchester.
3.	The Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain its records by parishes.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Boutin: What is the total number of unemployed persons in the constituency of Dorchester?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This information is not available.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 418^-Mr. Boutin:
How many federal government employees work in the constituency of Dorchester?
Jean-Luc Pepin: The constituency of Dorchester consists of the county of Dorchester and part of the county of Beauce. No statistics are available showing employment by electoral districts or counties. Analysis of information available for the economic region which includes the constituency of Dorchester indicates that no persons employed under the Civil Service Act at September 30, 1962 were located in that constituency. Statistics on employees not covered by the Civil Service Act are not available by economic region.


WINTER WORKS EXPENDITURES, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Boutin: 1.	During the 1962-63 season, what amount has the government spent within the framework of the winter works program in the constituency
of Dorchester?
2.	What amount was spent in each of the parishes?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. Municipal winter works incentive program, 1962-63, constituency of Dorchester.
28902-5-79i
Questions

Lac Etchemin Louis Joliette Rainville St. Anselme St. Aurelie St. Benjamin St. Bernard St. Claire St. Cyprien
St. Edouard-de-Frampton
St. Henedine
St. Isidore
St. Justine
St. Leon-de-Standon
St. Louis-de-Gonzague
St. Luc
St. Malachie
St. Nazaire
St. Odilon-de-Cranboum
St. Prosper
St. Bose-de-Watford
Totals


PROPOSALS FOR MANUFACTURE OF HEAVY WATER
Mr. Lambert: Have any proposals been received by the government from individual concerns interested in manufacturing heavy water following the announcement of the previous administration of an undertaking to purchase a maximum of 1,000 tons of heavy water over a period of five years and, if so
(a)	how many such proposals have been received
(b)	from what firms were such proposals received
(c)	has any decision been reached to accept any of these proposals (d) has any decision been reached as to the location of plant facilities for the production of heavy water under any of the above proposals (e) which of the companies making proposals are Canadian owned or Canadian controlled, and which are foreign owned or foreign controlled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) 4.
(b)	Deuterium of Canada Limited, Toronto; Dynamic Power Corporation, Calgary; Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto; Western Deuterium Company Limited, Victoria.
(c)	No. The proposals are under study.
(d)	No.
(e)	All companies are incorporated in Canada. The extent of foreign ownership is being determined. *


* EXPORT OF AUTO PARTS TO RED CHINA
Mr. Mather: Has the federal Department of Trade and Commerce received during the first five months of 1963 any applications for export permits for the shipment of auto parts to the Peoples Republic of 
Estimated Fed. Govt. Claims received and
Share authorized	paid to June 14,
$	$
5,000	
1,000	
1,500	1,200.00
1,120	
2,000	
5,500	1,977.38
4,500	2,897.84
2,317	
3,000	
4,327	3,200.00
1,000	642.10
750	
3,570	1,106.40
450	
19,550	7,492.51
13,750	
7,500	
2,750	
1,900	942.00
7,500	3,000.00
11,884	
100,868	22,458.23
China and, if so, (a) how many applications were approved, and of these (i) how many applications related to auto parts wholly manufactured in Canada (ii) how many applications related to auto parts manufactured in Canada by TJ.S. controlled companies (b) how many applications were rejected, and of these (i) how many applications related to auto parts wholly manufactured in Canada (ii) how many applications related to auto parts manufactured in Canada by XJ.S. controlled companies (c) were any export permits issued subsequently not used because U.S. controlled companies refused to supply goods?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This question has to do with sales of auto parts to mainland China and the answer is as follows:
Sixteen applications for export permits for shipment of auto parts to mainland China have been received since the 30th of April, none previously. While none of these permits has yet been approved, it is expected that 13 of these permits will shortly be issued. Two applications require further supporting information. One application has been refused because the goods involved were of U.S. origin. The source of manufacture in Canada of the parts covered in these permits is not a consideration in the issue or refusal of a permit.
Naturally, there is no information yet with respect to the utilization of the permits but in any event this part of the question concerns a private matter between supplying firms and exporting houses which does not concern the administration of export control.


FARM LOANS, MOOSE MOUNTAIN CONSTITUENCY
Mr, Soulham: 1.	What were the total number of loans made to farmers in the federal riding of Moose Mountain between October 1959 and April 8, 1963, by the Farm Credit Corporation?
2.	What is the total amount of these loans in dollars?
3.	What was the total number of loans made to
farmers in the riding of Moose Mountain under the farm loan board from April 1954 to October 1959?
4.	What is the total amount of these loans?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. From October 5, 1959 to March 31, 1963-371 loans. The figures from April 1 to April 8, 1963 are not available.
2.	$3,351,750.
3.	From April 1, 1954 to October 5, 1959- 320 loans.
4.	$1,556,750.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, TORQUAY, SASK.
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to construct a new building under the winter works incentive program at Torquay, Saskatchewan, in 1963 to be used as a post office?


Hubert Badanai: No. This post office reverted to revenue status in February, 1963 and responsibility for accommodation for this grade of postal service is that of the postmaster.


FARM DUGOUTS, MOOSE MOUNTAIN CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Southam: 1.	How many farm dugouts were developed In the riding of Moose Mountain during the periods 1951 to 1957 and 1957 to 1963?
2.	What was the total cost of these dugouts in the two periods mentioned?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. The number of farm dugouts developed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program from 1951 to 1957 was 4,336.
The number of farm dugouts developed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program from 1957 to 1963 was 2,516.
2. Total cost to the federal government from 1951 to 1957 was $540,786.07.
Total cost to the federal government from 1957 to 1963 was $464,650.89.


CONSERVATION DAMS, MOOSE MOUNTAIN CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Soulham: In 1963 how many dams will be constructed in the constituency of Moose Mountain under the P.F.R.A. water conservation program, and where will they be constructed?


Bruce Silas Beer: Investigations are being conducted in respect to two community storage dams on the Gainsborough and Moose Mountain creeks, with a view to construction being
Questions
undertaken in 1963. Consideration is being given to the construction of a number of small community projects on tributaries of the Souris river, but the exact number has not been determined.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE DOCTOR, CAMBRIDGE BAY, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare been able to secure the services of a resident doctor for the people of the central Arctic at Cambridge Bay, N.W.T., and, if not, (a) how long has this position been vacant (b) what steps are being taken to fill the position (c) what salary level is being offered (d) how does this salary compare with that paid by the D.E.W. line to its resident doctor at Cambridge Bay, N.W.T.?


Stanley Haidasz: No.
(a)	This position has been vacant since it was established on April 1, 1961.
(b)	Efforts have been made by the civil service commission and the Department of National Health and Welfare to obtain a medical officer for this post.
(c)	The salary ranges from $7,500 for a recent graduate to $11,600 for higher qualifications and experience, plus northern allowances and less deductions for housing and utilities.
(d)	The department has no authentic information regarding professional salaries to medical officers employed by the agency operating the D.E.W. line.


WENTWORTH STATION, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	Will the post office at Wentworth Station Nova Scotia, be closed?
2.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to erect a new post office in the Wentworth area?


George Roy McWilliam: 1. There is no move contemplated to close this post office at the present time.
2. No.


INSURANCE POLICIES, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Valade: 1.	Did the Minister of Defence Production cancel insurance policies held by his department as of April 8, 1963 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	From which companies were such policies
purchased?
3.	What was the amount of the insurance in each case as of April 8, 1963?
4.	What were the premiums for each one?
5.	What is the present amount of the insurance policies for each of the departments concerned?
6.	What are the premiums paid for each one?
7.	Were tenders called?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
Questions

4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
6.	N/A.
7.	N/A.
(Translation):


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
Mr. Valade: 1.	Did the Minister of Defence Production cancel the open tender method used by his department at the time he assumed responsibility for it?
2.	Has he awarded contracts by direct negotiation since he took office?
3.	Does he intend to use this method in the future for matters which in the past were usually dealt with by public tender?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the reply is no to the first part of the question and yes to the second part. As for the last part, it has always been the policy of the Minister of Defence Production to use the system of public tenders for purchases whenever possible. In actual practice, however, there are cases where this is impossible. We enter into contracts by means of direct negotiations when:
(a) conditions to call for public tenders do not exist; (b) reasons of security are involved; (c) sufficient sources of supply are not available; (d) there is military urgency; (e) delivery must be made in an isolated district or community; (f) the needs are so great that the usual sources of supply would be overloaded. (Text):


LEGAL PAYMENTS, C.M.H.C. OFFICE, FORT WILLIAM, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: What were the total fees paid for each year since 1958 by the C.M.H.C. office in Fort William to each lawyer who was engaged for work relating to title search and preparation of mortgages covering direct loans made by C.M.H.C. under the N.H.A.?


Mr. Garland:: Under normal mortgage practice, legal fees in connection with arranging of the mortgage are paid by the borrowers, and not by the lender. C.M.H.C. follows this general practice and, therefore, has no necessary records of the amount paid by borrowers.


N.H.A. MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long, if ever, has the administration of N.H.A. required a 2 per cent premium for N.H.A. mortgage insurance?
2.	For each year this requirement has been in effect, what income has it brought into the insurance fund, and what has been the total accumulation at the end of each year?
3.	In association with the above figures, what are the totals of (a) homes insured (b) homes foreclosed (c) drain on the fund?
4.	What is done with the insurance fund in terms of how it is invested and its fluidity?
5.	When, and from what agencies and groups, if any, has the government received representations to reduce or to abolish this 2 per cent premium?


John Richard Garland: 1. Since March 18, 1954, the
National	Housing Act has	required the payment of an insurance fee	for insuring loans.2.	Fees	AccumulationYear	For Year	at End of Year1954	$ 2,389,850	$ 2,389,8501955	9,237,250	11,627,1001956	9,839,746	21,466,8461957	7,278,911	28,745,7571958	13,816,071	42,561,8281959	13,146,403	55,708,2311960	8,456,279	64,164,5101961	10,970,952	75,135,4621962	11,576,518	86,711,9803.	(a) Units	AccumulationInsured	at endYear	(Approvals) of year	1954	40,433	40,4331955	63,959	104,3921956	39,356	143,7481957	44,396	188,1441958	75,962	264,1061959	52,874	316,9801960	35,019	351,9991961	57,112	409,1111962	45,660	454,711(C) Units	AccumulationFore-	at endYear	closed	of year1954	-	-1955	-	-1956	-	-1957	6	61958	6	121959	27	391960	131	1701961	1,077	1,2471962	1,064	2,311(b) Claims on	Accumulationthe	at endYear	Fund	of year1954	-	-1955	-	-1956	-	-1957	$ 38,185.	$ 38,185.1958	62,130.	100,315.1959	275,336.	375,651.1960	1,496,596.	1,872,247.1961	9,840,791.	11,713,038.1962	9,714,641.	21,427,679.
4.	Pursuant to section 10(3) of the National Housing Act, 1954, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation invests all of the mortgage insurance fund in obligations of or guaranteed by the government of Canada. As these investments are readily marketable, the fund is in a continuously fluid position.
5.	This government has not received formal representations from any agency or group regarding the mortgage insurance fee.


CONVERSATIONS RESPECTING TELEVISION STATION, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Secretary of State or any other member of the ministry held conversations of any kind since April 8 with Mr. Don Jameson of CJON-TV Newfoundland regarding the intention of the C.B.C. to establish a T.V. outlet in Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what representations did Mr. Jameson make regarding the C.B.C. venture in terms of enthusiasm or objection to the proposal?
3.	Did Mr. Jameson ask specifically that this project not be proceeded with and, if so, what reply was given him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I propose to answer this question orally but before doing so I should like to raise a question of order because 1 would not wish my answer in this particular case to constitute a precedent.
I have always understood that questions on the order paper were for the purpose of seeking information about the administration for which the minister is responsible to parliament and did not extend to private conversations the minister may have had with private individuals.
Having made that reservation of the principle, sir, I wish to give voluntarily the following answer.
I have had one or two conversations with Mr. Jameson both before and after April 8 in which the application of the C.B.C. to establish a television outlet in Newfoundland was discussed. Mr. Jameson never asked that the project not be proceeded with and, in fact, he told me that he believed that it was desirable to have alternative television programs available in St. John's.


SUNFLOWER SEED SUPPORT PRICE
Mr. Jorgenson: Has a decision been made regarding the support price for sunflower seeds for the current crop year and, if so, what are the levels of support?


Bruce Silas Beer: No decision has as yet been made concerning the support price for sunflower seeds for the 1963 crop.


POLITICAL BROADCAST ON ELECTION DAY, STATION CKAC
Mr. Valade: Questions
1.	Was an article of a political nature read over station CKAC on April 8, 1963, that is on the regular polling day, and, if so, what was said in this article?
2.	Was a protest made to the B.B.G. in this connection and, if so, by whom?
3.	Is the government of the opinion that the incident constitutes a violation of the Broadcasting Regulations or of the Elections Act, 1962 (or of both)?
4.	What disciplinary measures is the B.B.G. in a position to take against station CKAC with regard to this matter; has the government called the B.B.G. to account about it and, if so, what explanations were received?
5.	If not, is it the intention of the government to ask for a report on the matter?
6.	Has the B.B.G. investigated the incident and, if so, when and what was the B.B.G.'s decision?
7.	If not, when does the B.B.G. intend to look into the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The B.B.G. advises that the answers to questions 1 and 2 are as follows:
1.	Yes. The text of the article is attached.
2.	Yes, a telephone call from le Siege Social, 1'Association du Credit Social du Canada, Montreal; a telegram from Rod Bourdages, ie Parti Progressiste Conservateur, Montreal; a telegram from Georges Valade, Candidat, Progressiste-Conservateur, Comte Montreal, Ste. Marie, P.Q.
3.	This is a request for a legal opinion which it is not customary to provide in answer to a question.
4.	The B.B.G. advises that it could take action in two ways; first, a suspension of licence under section 15 of the Broadcasting Act and, second, by summary conviction under section 18 of the Broadcasting Act. Under section 15 a suspension of licence could be for a maximum period of three months. Under section 18, the maximum sanction for a summary conviction offence is a fine of $500 or imprisonment for six months or both. The government has not called the B.B.G. to account on this matter, and therefore no explanations have been received from the board.
5.	This is a matter for the B.B.G., not the government.
6.	I am informed that the B.B.G. has investigated the incident but has not yet made a decision on any course of action to be taken.
7.	This question is not applicable as the board has investigated the incident.
(Translation):
The fate of French Canada
When he has considered all other problems which made the headlines during the election campaign, the Quebec voter is bound to ask: "What fate do the various parties calling on me to vote for them reserve for French Canada?"
It was noticed during the campaign which is now almost over that more than ever the people of Quebec are concerned over the great

Questions
problems of Canada. Despite the importance of provincial matters and the passionate concern they arouse, despite the separatist upheaval which tends to concentrate attention on the sole interests of our group, public opinion in Quebec has just the same shown an increased curiosity and interest in matters of Canadian scope, such as nuclear arms, unemployment and economic planning.
What must be emphasized, however, is that the vast majority of French Canadians never will accept any solution where the bicultural character of Canada is overlooked, no matter how beneficial or immediately practical the solution might be. When we are fighting for a truly bicultural Canada, it is to ensure our very existence and collective development. And there is nothing to be gained, no reasonable compensation to be had in return which can justify a people to surrender those values.
Therefore, just before going to the polls, we must ask ourselves what promise and what dangers the coming election holds in store for us in that regard. The answer is not simple, far from it. One has the impression that the programs and positions of the respective parties give reason both for greater hopes and greater fears than ever for the French Canadians.
Let us look at the theoretical program and the concrete position of each party before the cultural reality of Canada.
There is no doubt that the Conservatives show, in this respect, the strangest contradictions. Never, in my opinion, has Mr. Dief-enbaker managed to utter one convincing word on that question. One feels that neither the prime minister nor his ministers have ever given it much thought. When they are asked for their opinion, they are almost proud of the fact that they have nothing to say on that matter. They waste no time in stating that the Conservative government has taken positive action instead of being satisfied with idle talk. And when they mention the measures taken by the Conservatives with regard to provincial autonomy, they are convincing. But when they start talking about bilingual cheques, simultaneous translation in parliament and other trifles of the same kind, one has the impression that they are fifty years behind the times.
If, in addition, we keep in mind that Mr. Diefenbaker has never succeeded in five years in ensuring within the cabinet an appropriate French Canadian representation, there is definitely more cause for concern than for hope.
As for Social Crediters, they use every means to play up the Quebec issue. It is unquestionable that their presence in Ottawa has put French Canada in the limelight. Have they conveyed a faithful picture of us, how-

ever? Have they strengthened the moral stature of Quebec throughout Canada? I do not think so. That we should suddenly become the champions of an untenable monetary policy could not, in my opinion, prove beneficial in any way to the situation of French Canadians within confederation, even though the supporters of such a doctrine make a lot of fuss over nationalism.
The positions taken by the Liberal party and the N.D.P. are obviously clearer and more progressive. They open up more encouraging vistas for the future. To repeat, both parties have adopted platforms which, if carried out, will constitute an important step towards the achievement of true equality between the two cultures in Canada. Only ten years ago, the Liberal party and the N.D.P. would have been strongly against such programs.
Naturally, certain separatist tendencies of the Quebec wing of the N.D.P. are a source of concern. On the other hand, it is to be feared that the Liberals might shelve their program after the election. However, on the eve of the election, if all other considerations but that one were to be forgotten (God forbid!) it is most certainly with the N.D.P. or the Liberal party that we stand the best chance to improve the lot of French Canada within the next four years.
Gerard Pelletier
(Text):


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OFFICERS IN FRANCE
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What are the names of those persons who represent the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in France?
2.	In what French cities are the departmental offices located?


John Carr Munro: 1. Mr. L. A. Chevrier, Mr. J.
G.	Grant, Mr. G. J. Durocher, Mr. A. Morin, Mr. J. H. A. Duplain, Mr. J. A. Guenet, Mr. J. B. R. Marleau, Mr. J. W. R. L. Allard, Mr. J. G. Lapierre, Mrs. S. Lefebvre.
2.	Paris only.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Perron: How many employees are there in the Post Office Department and, of these (a) how many are bilingual (b) how many speak English only (c) how many speak French only (d) how many are French
Canadians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if questions numbers 506 to 566 inclusive could all be allowed to stand today?
Questions stand.


* QUOTA ON U.S. TURKEYS ENTERING CANADA
Mr. Hales: Has the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with the Minister of Trade and Commerce following the Geneva trade agreements, taken any steps to remove the quotas on American turkeys coming into Canada, and, if so, what steps have been taken?


Bruce Silas Beer: The question of import controls on turkeys entering Canada is a matter of government policy and an announcement will be made on this matter at an appropriate time.


* OFFERS OF SUGAR AT REDUCED PRICES
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce recently received advantageous offers from certain friendly
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories Yukon


RECIPIENTS OF BLIND PERSONS ALLOWANCE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	By provinces, how many persons are in receipt of allowances under the Blind Persons Act?
2.	By provinces, what is the average amount of the allowance received under the said act?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. 2.
As of April 30, As of April 30,
	1963	1963 $ 63.68
Newfoundland	431	
Prince Edward Island	83	63.21Nova Scotia	787	63.20New Brunswick	702	63.76Quebec	2,088	63.77Ontario	1,876	58.71Manitoba	374	62.88Saskatchewan	418	63.16Alberta	464	63.48British Columbia	551	63.92Northwest Territories 47	59.26Yukon	4	65.00
Questions
countries in a position to supply Canada with all the sugar it needs at regular prices, that is, the prices in effect on the Canadian market before the last increase?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No such offer has been received by the minister or has come to his attention.


RECIPIENTS OF OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	By provinces how many persons are in receipt of allowances under the Old Age Assistance Act?
2.	By provinces, what is the average amount of the allowance received under the said act?
3.	In each province, how many persons are there who are 65 years of age and over but not yet 70
years of age?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.	2.	3.As of April 30,	As of April 30,	As of June 11963	1963 $	19625,164	62.88	9,8001,043	60.35	3,6005,474	59.62	21,3005,468	61.55	16,20037,108	61.40	119,60023,872	58.75	182,3005,421	60.78	28,1005,822	59.65	27,7006,502	60.30	32,1007,051	62.25	50,200146	63.79	30035	64.49	200RECIPIENTS OF DISABLED PERSONS ALLOWANCE	
Question No. 575-	-Mr. Knowles:		
1.	By provinces, how many persons are in receipt of allowances under the Disabled Persons Act? 2.	By provinces, what is the average amount of the allowance received under the said act?


Stanley Haidasz: 1. As of April 30, 1963			2. As of April 30, 1963 $ 64.64
Newfoundland	1,434		
Prince Edward Island 797			64.40
Nova Scotia	2,918	63.81New Brunswick	2,071	64.49Quebec	21,244	64.32Ontario	14,921	63.68Manitoba	1,517	64.18Saskatchewan	1,597	64.47Alberta	1,791	63.50British Columbia	2,242	64.14Northwest Territories 21	65.00Yukon	7	65.00
Questions


QUORUM OF FEDERAL CABINET
Mr. Mather: What is the required quorum, if any, to constitute a meeting of the federal cabinet?


Mr. Davis:: The cabinet is an informal body which discusses and decides questions of policy. Its organization and procedures are nowhere prescribed by law, but are matters for its own determination and are not normally disclosed. In its composition, however, the cabinet is identical with the committee of the privy council which exercises the right of the privy council for Canada "to aid and advise in the government of Canada" under section 11 of the British North America Act, 1867. It is the committee, then, and not the cabinet as such, which formally tenders advice to the Governor General when action by the governor in council is required. It has been the custom for many years that the committee of the council does not advise the Governor General to approve an order in council without the presence or concurrence of at least four ministers. This practice originated in the Queen's instructions to the Governor General at the time of confederation.
An order in council of 25th October, 1935, P.C. 3374, which has not since been varied or rescinded, states that "the quorum of the council being four, no submission for approval to the Governor General can be made with a less number than the quorum". This does not apply, however, to the deliberations and decisions of the cabinet as such, when it is not acting in its formal character as the committee.
Certain actions are taken by the Governor General, such as the appointment of ministers and the dissolution of parliament, on the basis of advice tendered by the Prime Minister alone, and no question of a quorum arises in such circumstances. It should be noted that the letters patent approved by the King in September 1947, and in effect since October of that year, constituting the office of Governor General of Canada state in paragraph II:
And we do hereby authorize and empower our Governor General, with the advice of our privy council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to us in respect of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office and to the trust we have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946 and the powers and authorities hereinafter conferred in these letters patent and in such commission as may be issued to him under our Great Seal of Canada and under such laws as are or may hereinafter be in force in Canada.


*OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE IN BUDGET PREPARATION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Did any persons outside the government service take the oath of secrecy in connection with their assisting the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget presented to the House of Commons on June 13, 1963, and, if so, what are the names of such persons; who administered the oath to such persons and on what date or dates?
2.	Did any person outside the government service assist the Minister of Finance in the preparation of his budget without taking the oath of secrecy and, if so, what are the names of such persons?
3.	Was (a) any remuneration (b) any reimbursement of expenses, paid to any persons outside the government service in connection with their assisting the Minister of Finance in the preparation of his budget, and, if so, what are the names of such persons and how much was paid to each such person?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1. Yes, Miss V. M. Johnson, personnel officer, Department of Finance, administered the oath of secrecy to Dr. M. P. O'Connell on April 23, 1963, to Mr. G. R. Conway on May 2, 1963, to Mr. E. J. Benson on May 2, 1963 and to Mr. R. J. Anderson on May 7, 1963.
Mr. R. J. Anderson was present from May 7 to May 16 and assisted in preparation of the expenditure estimates only.
Mr. S. A. Clemens, chief administrative officer, Department of Finance, administered the oath of secrecy to Mr. D. C. H. Stanley on May 2, 1963.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Yes. Mr. G. R. Conway on a $50 per diem fee for each day he is engaged in the above duties.
(b) Yes, Dr. M. P. O'Connell, Mr. D. C. H. Stanley, Mr. G. R. Conway and Mr. R. J. Anderson on a $25 per diem living allowance for each while absent from his normal place of residence.


* OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS IN BUDGET PREPARATION
Mr. Churchill: 1.	What are the names of the outside consultants, not members of the civil service, who conferred with or were consulted by, or in any way assisted, the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget?
2.	What persons, not members of the civil service, took the oath of secrecy in connection with assisting the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget?
3.	Who administered the oath of secrecy to the above-mentioned persons?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1. Dr. M. P. O'Connell, Mr. G. R. Conway, Mr. D. C. H. Stanley, Mr. R. J. Anderson who assisted in the preparation and presentation of expenditure estimates only.
2. Dr. M. P. O'Connell, Mr. G. R. Conway, Mr. D. C. H. Stanley, Mr. E. J. Benson, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance; Mr. R. J. Anderson who was pres-

ent from May 7 to May 16 and assisted in preparation and presentation of expenditure estimates only.
3.	Miss V. M. Johnson, personnel officer, Department of Finance, administered the oath of secrecy to Dr. M. P. O'Connell, Mr. G. R. Conway, Mr. E. J. Benson, and Mr. R. J. Anderson. Mr. S. A. Clemens, chief administrative officer, Department of Finance, administered the oath of secrecy to Mr. D. C. H. Stanley.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pigeon: What is the amount of each government bond issue, and the total of all the issues, for each year, from 1914 to date?


Mr. Benson:: Return tabled.


* ARMED FORCES COLLEGES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many students, each year, have gone on to R.M.C. from C.M.R., and from Royal Roads?
2.	How many of these students, from each place, were considered French speaking in origin and English speaking in origin?
3.	For each year these students were in R.M.C., what was the record of performance for C.M.R. and Royal Roads students, of both French and English origin, in terms of drop-out, failure, and passing?
4.	How many students have entered C.M.R. and Royal Roads since 1952-53?
5.	How many of these students are (a) still in the service colleges at this date and (b) still in the armed services as commissioned officers?


DISPOSITION OF R.C.A.F. STATION, FINGAL, ONT.
Mr. McBain: 1.	What plans is the government making for the immediate use of the former R.C.A.F. station at Fingal, Ontario?
2.	Are these plans any different from those of the former government?
3.	Were tenders called for the leasing of the farm land at Fingal and, if so (a) what were the names and addresses of persons submitting tenders, and the amount of each tender (b) how many were accepted, and what are the names of the successful tenderers, and the length of lease?


Mr. Cardin:: Return tabled.



THE BUDGET


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), that the house be adjourned to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the admission by the Minister of Finance on Friday, June 14 of facts relating to the preparation of the
Assistance in Budget Preparation budget, which facts constitute a flagrant departure from constitutional budgetary practice, imperil the traditional and essential secrecy of the budget, and which have had an unsettling effect on this house and on the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would appreciate any comments any individual member would care to offer by way of assistance in arriving at a decision.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Peace River would like to speak first.


Mr. Baldwin:: No, I would be quite happy to follow the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I may say at the outset that the government is ready, and indeed is in every way willing, to have the matter referred to in the notice of motion debated, and debated just as early as the house wants to have it debated. I indicated on-


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to proceed, Mr. Speaker. I indicated on Friday that I was in complete agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and that there would be no effort on the part of the government to prevent the fullest possible debate on this matter at an appropriate time.
At six o'clock on Friday evening when I was asked the business of the house for today and the rest of this week, I indicated that the budget debate would begin on Wednesday, and no exception was taken to that order of business which was prescribed. However, if it is felt that this matter should be debated today, I want to say right here and now that the government is only too ready to have the budget debate begin this afternoon-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -since the matter to which the motion refers deals directly with the budget, and since the budget debate would provide an opportunity for the house to pronounce itself on the matter. The government would be very ready indeed to have this procedure followed if it meets with the wishes of hon. members.


Mr. Sfanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, standing order 26 provides for debate of matters concerning which there is urgency of debate. I submit that even before we debate the budget that has been presented to the house, there is urgency of debating the circumstances under which this budget was prepared.
1236	HOUSE OF
Assistance in Budget Preparation
I submit that the Secretary of State is trying to lead us down the garden path when he suggests that we should start debating the budget and that in the course of that debate we could deal with the particular matter covered in the motion presented by the leader of the official opposition, a matter concerning which the leader of my party has a similar motion. The Secretary of State knows that if this is left to be discussed in the house of the budget debate then this particular issue, namely the assistance that the Minister of Finance had in the preparation of the budget, will be smothered and spread through the budget debate.
It is this issue that should be debated first, and I submit that the point of privilege raised earlier today by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) adds to the concern, and to the unsettled condition in this house and in the country, which is referred to in the motion. I submit there should be no confusion between debating this issue, namely the assistance the Minister of Finance had from outside sources and the budget itself. Every argument calls for separating these two issues, and the Secretary of State should not make the suggestion he made just now.
He said that on Friday evening he announced that the debate on the budget would begin on Wednesday and there was no objection to that. But, Mr. Speaker, he knows that announcement was made after agreement among the house leaders of the four parties, and he knows this issue was a completely separate one. He indicated on Friday that the government would not object to debating this particular issue pinpointed by the motion before us, and I suggest that Your Honour should rule on this matter concerning which there is urgency of debate before the house starts the debate on the budget itself.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am quite in accord with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said. This is a matter which should be treated as a condition precedent to the launching of the budget debate. The announcements which were wrung from the Minister of Finance in this house last Friday are of so grave a nature that the house is entitled to make full inquiry into them, so that before the budget debate is launched next Wednesday we may be in a position to judge, from the results of this debate, the course of action which the house should take.
To the extent that there was implicit in the remarks of the Secretary of State a suggestion that because there is going to be a budget debate on Wednesday we should not


now proceed with this matter, which I think involves a question of urgency of debate, I would feel-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. I said the government was quite ready to call the budget debate this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: A red herring.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is my submission that the gravity of this situation is such that the house should lose no time in launching a debate on this issue now.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the matter which is before us at the present time, I think we must be careful to consider it in the true light of the principle that is involved. I do not think that all the brains in Canada have been funnelled into this house, let alone into the Liberal party, and it seems to me it is not a bad practice to bring in the advice of experts in order to help.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: However, Mr. Speaker,
provided that the oath of secrecy has been taken.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with the question of whether this is right or wrong. We are dealing with a particular motion-


Robert Norman Thompson: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit with the greatest respect that the hon. member for Red Deer is discussing the merits of what happened, whether it was right or wrong, and he is not on the point referred to in the motion itself. It is the question of public importance and urgency that is before the Chair at the present time, and I suggest with the greatest respect that the leader of the Social Credit party be brought to order.


Robert Norman Thompson: This is the very thing I am talking about, whether or not this is an urgent matter, and it is my opinion that so long as these precautions have been taken then the practice which has been followed is a good one in principle. However-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, what you have asked for is that hon. members contribute on the question as to whether this matter should be debated now. What is being discussed at this point is a point of order, and not the substance of the issue itself.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is the very thing I am getting to.


Mr. Nowlan:: No, it is not.


Robert Norman Thompson: In our opinion this is not a matter of urgent importance and it should be dealt with in due course, as it has been agreed by the government that it will be. Therefore it is not a matter of immediate importance now.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this request for leave to set aside the normal business of the house to deal with the matter raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, it has been made clear very frequently that it is one issue and one issue only that must be dealt with by Your Honour, and that is stated in Beauchesne's fourth edition in citation 100, which I will read:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
We have had other occasions when former Speakers have elaborated upon that basic citation. May I refer to comments made by His Honour the Speaker on Wednesday, February 18, 1959, as reported at page 1133 of Hansard:
The question that concerns me is whether there will be an opportunity to discuss this important matter, such that we do not need to interrupt the proceedings to deal with it today,-
The request being made, Mr. Speaker, is that the ordinary proceedings of the house be set aside and that resort be had to a very extraordinary device under standing order 26. Normally it might be argued that opportunities are not available to discuss this important matter, and that therefore it would be justifiable to ask that the normal proceedings be set aside. It is accepted that the government normally is in charge of the agenda for the house, and the leader of the house has just stated that the budget debate can be brought forward today to provide an opportunity to discuss this matter.
In the light of the information conveyed by the house leader it seems to me unnecessary to have resort to this extraordinary device and that Your Honour, armed with the knowledge that the budget debate can be brought on today, has very little latitude in determining the matter of urgency because an ordinary opportunity for dealing with this matter can be provided this afternoon.
It would seem to me that this procedure ought to appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite
17, 1963
Assistance in Budget Preparation because it will enable them, if they so wish, to place a motion before the house as an amendment and have the matter finally disposed of in the way the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said it ought to be disposed of. Any debate under standing order 26 would be inconclusive, and no final determination could be made of the issue itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Labour has himself given the best reason for this debate proceeding now, namely the urgency of the subject matter of the motion. The budget was presented here on Thursday night. On Friday it was made clear that three individuals, while on the payroll of investment companies in the city of Toronto, were privy to all the documents-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -connected with the budget itself. Then today it has been made clear that a firm with which the Minister of Finance was formerly associated sent out a 25 page summary of the budget which arrived in the city of Calgary the morning after the budget was delivered. Surely if there is anything urgent it is that public confidence should be restored in the government and in the Department of Finance with the least possible delay. Surely there is nothing more urgent than that this matter, which has caused a good deal of concern and distress across the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -ought to be dealt with, and dealt with properly.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Those who say no have only to look at a good Liberal newspaper like the Toronto Star-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -which has made it very clear that the public is concerned about this subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen applauded when the hon. gentleman from Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams) objected to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -debating the substance rather than the question of urgency, and it seems to me the same principle should also apply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. What we are now considering is
1238	HOUSE OF
Assistance in Budget Preparation not whether the subject is urgent in itself, but whether there is urgency of debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I am making.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is a matter which ought to be debated with the least possible delay, and to wait until there is a general debate on the budget is to leave the public, the people of Canada, and this house in a state of uncertainty; it is to leave the Minister of Finance in a position where he has no opportunity to clear up some of the matters that were raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I submit that there is urgency of debate; that there is nothing more urgent than that this matter be dealt with, and dealt with today, so the Canadian people may hear whatever explanation the minister has to make regarding this matter.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of urgency of debate to which my hon. friend has just referred, may I suggest very respectfully that Your Honour give your ruling, and if your ruling is adverse-as in my view it should be, under the rules-we will, right after the orders of the day, go on to the budget debate and there will be no delay of any kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lambert:: That is a real red herring.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, that is the very point I wish to raise as to the urgency of debate. As has been said, the budget came down Thursday night, and on Friday there was an agreement worked out among the various leaders of the parties in this house that the budget debate would be resumed on Wednesday. That is a short enough period for preparation for a debate on the budget. If one goes back through the years one sees that usually that number of days, if not more, has elapsed before a budget debate has taken place.
The house leader was the one who, after consulting the leaders of the other parties, suggested this course, and it would have worked out. Now this afternoon the house leader is suggesting that we should short circuit the agreement that has been made in this respect; that we should begin immediately a budget debate. If we are going to change the program which has been laid down after consultation among the house leaders; if we are going to shorten the time for the preparation of a debate on the budget by this device, I suggest to Your Honour that this is the very best argument in the world as to the


urgency of debate, and therefore you should accept the motion which has been made before you this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I will have the same attention that we on this side of the house have given to hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, quite rightly, that the program prescribed for today and this week was agreed to among the parties in the house. That is quite true. But I did suggest today-and I did not say that the government was going to impose this or seek to impose it on the house-that if the house was agreeable, and if this matter was deemed to be an urgent matter to be debated, we could debate it on the budget this afternoon. I repeat that statement, that if hon. members opposite consider this to be an urgent matter to be debated today, rather than on Wednesday, the government is only too ready to bring on the budget debate so that it can be debated.
What I rose particularly to point out was that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said I knew perfectly well that in the budget debate this matter would get mixed up with all kinds of other questions and there would be no way of getting it clearly resolved. Well, there is no way of getting it clearly resolved by having a debate under standing order 26, because such a debate would lead to no conclusion whatsoever. But if hon. gentlemen sincerely regard this matter as important, as they say they do, surely this should be the subject of an amendment, as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour correctly pointed out, which would bring it into focus and allow the house to reach a decision on the matter which hon. members profess to want.
The government is making an offer to the house, not only to have the debate begin today but to have it begun in a way which will lead to a determination by a vote of the house tomorrow, under the rules. That is the position taken by the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Secretary of State, I think he has missed the most important point when dealing with the question of urgency of debate. There are two points here. First of all, there is the question of secrecy, which might lead to some indiscretion and from which very important results could follow. In the second place, the debate on the budget is primarily a debate on the contents of the budget. We had only to hear what the hon. member for Calgary North had to say

to realize there may be some indiscretion. If, as a result of the debate, some indiscretion followed, serious ramifications might ensue. I say this is a distinct and separate fact which should be debated before we proceed to debate the budget itself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have just one word to say on this point of order. I think we are all in agreement that the motion conforms with the rules and precedents which this house has to follow. The only aspect which has led to discussion is whether or not there is urgency for immediate debate. I submit that the Secretary of State has himself clearly established that there is such urgency. He has done so by offering to change the entire schedule of the business of the house for this week, bringing the budget debate forward from Wednesday to today because he deems there is urgency attached to this matter.
If there is urgency of debate, the motion which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is entirely within the rules, and that is the only aspect of this question which has led to any discussion. The Secretary of State has said, in effect, that this is an urgent matter and one which must be debated immediately by bringing the budget debate forward. In these circumstances I say the motion should be granted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I regret it, but I simply cannot let the Secretary of State get away with this show of magnanimity when he offers us the budget debate for today. Last Thursday night, after the budget presentation had been made and after the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings had spoken briefly, the leader of the house was asked what the business would be for the next day and when the budget debate would be resumed. He said, as recorded in Hansard at page 1032:
I would prefer to confer with hon. gentlemen opposite before announcing when the budget debate will resume or what will be the program for next week.
The hon. gentleman knows, and he has freely admitted it, that the representatives of the four parties met on Friday to discuss this matter and that it was at his request, on behalf of the government, that we postponed the budget debate until Wednesday in order that the government might proceed with legislation on Monday and Tuesday. It was at the request of the government that the budget debate was delayed and, accordingly, those on the opposition side of the house who had to prepare speeches on the contents of the budget governed themselves accordingly. For the Secretary of State to suggest now that the budget debate should start today, and
17, 1963	1239
Assistance in Budget Preparation that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and others should be ready now to debate the contents of the budget is, I suggest, not so magnanimous an offer as the hon. gentleman and his colleagues make it out to be.
On the question of urgency of discussion, I maintain we are entitled to know the kind of assistance which was given in the preparation of the budget-an answer to the question "whose budget is it?"-before we resume the debate on the budget itself. The Secretary of State said that if we want to discuss the kind of motion which would deal with this matter we should welcome the debate on the budget being brought forward in order that the appropriate amendment might be made. I suggest that before anyone could decide whether an amendment of that sort ought to be made we should have the debate we are asking for today, so that we might find out what the situation is in this respect. The Minister of Labour, among others, has told us that if there were a debate today on a motion under the terms of standing order 26, it would not decide anything. By virtue of that fact, that it would not decide anything of substance, it would be open to the house if it wished to put down an amendment of substance when the budget comes up.
But before the house is asked to decide whether such an amendment should be moved, we ought to have a debate along the lines of the one we are now seeking in order that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other members of the house could get this point cleared up. This is in the same category as the motion moved by the Liberals on January 31, when there was clearly a case for urgency of debate. This whole situation should be cleared up before we get into a debate on the budget itself and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what your ruling should be.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: The
Minister of Labour mentioned that this was an extraordinary device. I am going to agree with him immediately but I should like you to consider, when you are preparing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that if this is an extraordinary device, what we are dealing with is an extraordinary departure from the practices of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to thank hon. members for helping me with brief statements on the question of urgency under this standing order. The matter is a very important one, we all recognize that; but may I also say in passing that it is not the duty of the Chair, as I understand it, to give lectures in procedure

Assistance in Budget Preparation but to decide matters as they arise. I do want, once again, to thank hon. members tor helping me come to a conclusion.
After reading the Hansard report of the discussion relating to this question which took place last Friday afternoon, and listening to the remarks made this afternoon, it would seem to me that no agreement has been reached to the effect that a discussion on this matter would take place today. Therefore, in the absence of any agreement, it is my duty to deal with this request in the ordinary manner.
According to section (3) of standing order 26, when a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed is handed to the Speaker, he reads it out if he thinks it is in order and of urgent importance.
As hon. members know, it is well established in our practice that "urgency" within rule 26 does not apply to the matter itself but it means "urgency of debate".
Paragraph 3 of citation 100, Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
As long ago as March 31, 1931, Mr. Speaker Black stated:
The reason for allowing such a motion is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do in no other way.
The matter proposed to be discussed today relates to the budget. As reported at page 1208 of Hansard of last Friday, the hon. Secretary of State announced that the budget debate would begin next Wednesday and that it was proposed that it should continue until completed.
When the budget debate is under way, it would seem to me that any question including any or all of the circumstances relating to the machinery followed in the preparation of the budget proposals would come within the ambit of debate. I suggest that it could not be otherwise.
In effect, then, there is a period of 48 hours between now and Wednesday-the period of ordinary notice as prescribed by standing order 41-before the rules and practice of the house will provide an opportunity to discuss every question relating to the preparation, presentation and/or implementation of the budget.
Under these circumstances, I must regretfully inform the house that I do not think that the hon. member's request is a matter of urgency of debate today within the meaning of standing order 26.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must regretfully appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the ruling is appealed, may I make one further short comment. My predecessors have many times in the past expressed the view that there is no appeal of a decision taken by the Speaker under standing order 26.
In this regard, I refer hon. members to a ruling made by my immediate predecessor on January 31, 1963, which appears at page 3297 of Hansard. Therefore, I am making a similar ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That ruling to which you have just referred, Mr. Speaker, was reversed by a vote of the house, and I submit that a decision of the house stands over the decision which was made by Mr. Speaker Lambert.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam now appeals that decision. Those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from the ruling of the Chair. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, having asked leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the admission by the Minister of Finance on Friday, June 14, of facts relating to the preparation of the budget, which facts constitute a flagrant departure from constitutional budgetary practice, imperil the traditional and essential secrecy of the budget, and which have had an unsettling effect on this house and on the country.
The Chair decided that in his opinion the proposal was not a matter of urgency of debate as understood under the terms of standing order 26 as the said proposal could be discussed and voted upon during the budget debate which will be under way on Wednesday next.
Whereupon the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.
The Chair then stated that his predecessors had on many occasions decided that there could not be an appeal to the house under such circumstances and referred to a precedent to be found in Hansard for January 31, 1963 at page 3297.
Whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order to the effect that the Speaker's decision on the 31st of January, 1963 had been appealed and reversed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since you read the motion in English, I did not quite understand what it was all about.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but there is no question of privilege when the vote is being taken.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I merely
wanted to know on what matter we were called to vote.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been put and the vote is in progress. The hon. member will have to wait until after the vote is taken.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Fort William Had I voted, I would have voted nay.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was paired with the hon member for Dollard. Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Nicholson:: I was paired with the hon member for Okanagan Boundary. Had 1 voted, I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.


Miss Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stenson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the decision.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul). Had I voted, I would have voted for the upholding of the decision.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I was paired with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger). Had I voted, I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I should like to ask Your Honour's permission to speak to a point of privilege. I did not realize I was paired when I voted, and I want to bring that to the attention of the house. I was paired with the hon. member for Regina. I certainly express my sincere regret in the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the orders of the day are called may I state that a proposal has been made to the effect that if the house so desired the order of business could be changed to permit a discussion of the matter which has been under consideration now for some time, and which is considered serious and urgent by so many. This discussion can be agreed to for this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, he had no right to speak at all at this time. However, since he has been allowed to speak may I say that when an offer such as this is made one can fully understand the reason for it. We gave the government every opportunity, and it refused to allow this very serious matter to be discussed today. The Prime Minister cannot get out of it now by this explanation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman said that the decision was made by the government as to whether this should be debated under the rules. Mr. Speaker, of course the decision was made by you.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I want to rise on a point of order. The Secretary of State today in answering question No. 471, which was not starred, did so orally. The rules do not provide for an oral answer to a written question unless it is starred. Rule 39(2) states that the answer shall be handed to the Clerk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am raising the point in spite of some objections from hon. members across the way because there should have been unanimous consent of the house before such a procedure was followed. I think that we departed basically from a practice for other than straightforward purposes. I suggest the


answer might have been properly given, but it was not in accordance with the rules. I am not making any motion, but I am raising the question now before orders of the day are called, so that there will be no suggestion I concurred in this particular procedure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman has raised the point I am sure if he would peruse the records of parliament he would find many occasions when questions that were not starred were answered orally, and it seems to me there is no doubt both the practice and the rule have been that when a minister wishes to give an oral answer he is perfectly free to do so. But there is no obligation to give an oral answer unless the hon. member asking the question puts an asterisk before it, and then the minister does have an obligation to answer orally. I believe that will be found to be the practice.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should be set very clear. Rule 39(2)(b) states:
If a member does not distinguish his question by an asterisk, the minister to whom the question is addressed hands the answer to the Clerk of the House who causes it to be printed in the official reports of the debates.
That is the rule and the practice that has been followed in the past.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the clear and express provision in section 5(2) of the Financial Administration Act that the treasury board does not have powers of appointment, will he explain how the gentlemen who were named the other day were appointed temporarily to the Department of Finance by action of the treasury board?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the minutes of the treasury board are submitted to council and passed by council, and that gives them the authority that the hon. gentleman asked for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance respecting the matter of urgency-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the information I was able to obtain this morning was that there was no order in council approving these appointments, can the minister say when an order in council was passed approving them?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the normal course the treasury board minutes are submitted to the next meeting of council. I will look into it and make sure that took place in this particular instance, but I am informed that it did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Was the minister present at the meeting of treasury board on May 2? Did he know, when he agreed to the minute, that the gentlemen concerned would be privy to the secrets of the budget?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not propose to answer my question?


An hon. Member:: He doesn't have to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State? Was he present at the meeting of treasury board on May 2?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not be able to answer the hon. member's question without breaking the privy councillor's oath, and I have no intention of doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister indicate to the house why, when he was giving certain names on Friday, he did not happen to give us the name of Mr. R. J. Anderson, who was also taken into the department for this special work. Could he now give us Mr. Anderson's connections in the same way he gave us the connections of the other three gentlemen?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. On Friday I was asked who had helped with the budget, and there was a good deal of reference to ghost writing and one thing and another. Mr. Anderson came in for a period of nine days to assist with the preparation of the estimates presentation-the figures-and that is all he did. It did not seem to me on Friday that he should be included in the answers to the questions submitted to me. Mr. Anderson is a partner in Clarkson, Gordon and Company of Toronto.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. Was Mr. Anderson shown a final copy of the budget-, as were the other three, before it was presented?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Could the minister assure the house that these consultants were Canadian citizens?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: To the best of my knowledge they are, Mr. Speaker. They have lived here for many years; but I cannot say in answer to that direct question whether they are or not, without further inquiries. I would be glad to answer that tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister tell us whether Mr. Conway, the doctoral student of Harvard University, is a Canadian citizen?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Conway comes from Vancouver and as far as I know is a Canadian citizen, although I have never actually asked him. My hon. friend the Minister of Forestry tells me he is a Canadian citizen, but I will check that.


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question. Could the Minister of Finance advise the house what is the statutory authority for the administration of an oath of secrecy to the consultants about whom he has advised us?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not in a position to give a legal opinion, but I would be glad to make inquiries and answer the question tomorrow.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question, and it is not a facetious one. Could he tell us if any of the three consultants put on contract without salary to help him with the budget were on a similar leave of absence from their own firms between February 6 and April 8 to assist him?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear
the exact dates.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Between February 6 and April 8.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: These gentleman were not helping me at that time, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Might I ask whether they were helping the prime minister at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the prime minister at that time was the present Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think they were helping him. If they were taking part in an election campaign, then I hope my hon. friend will not think that that would be an inappropriate activity on the part of these gentlemen.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he has yet been able to ascertain the date and number of any order in council validating the treasury board minutes that presumed to appoint the consultants to whom reference has been made?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not certain, but I will try to give an answer to that question tomorrow morning. I have not got the answer as yet. I hope to be able to give a clear reply tomorrow.

(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Further to the many questions he has been asked concerning the advisers who, at his request, took part in the preparation of the budget, did the minister also think of seeking advice from somebody from eastern Canada or the province of Quebec, to bring out the autonomist point of view of the province in the budget?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We tried to get advice both from within and without the government service that would apply to all parts of Canada.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister ask Mr. Lesage to recommend someone in order to get a more autonomist budget?
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether he received a communication from the Ontario retail lumber dealers association and also from the greater Windsor homebuilders association protesting against the application of federal sales tax to building materials and pointing out the serious results which will flow from its imposition. If so, is he now giving consideration to withdrawing the measure?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally received those telegrams as yet but I am sure they are in the departmental office and I expect I will receive them later today. At that time I will be able to decide what course of action should be taken.
[Mr. Pearson.)


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: This is a supplementary question to the question put to the Minister of Finance by the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago. Perhaps the minister would just pay a little attention.
Has the hon. gentleman received a telegram from the Elgin and St. Thomas branch of the national home builders association or telegrams from other home builders across Canada requesting relief on contracts already committed which will be affected by the increased 11 per cent sales tax as imposed in his budget on home builders' supplies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I must give the same answer, I am afraid. The telegram is probably in the departmental office and I expect to receive it when I am back in my own office. I would point out, though, that in the budget speech I made a clear statement that refunds would be made in all cases where there were fixed contracts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would also take into consideration a telegram which he likely has received from Mr. C. D. Wilson, president of the Calgary householders association, making a similar statement.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister consider the question of exempting building materials used in the construction of schools and hospitals from the application of the 11 per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I presume that is the sort of thing that will be discussed during the course of the budget debate.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was asked some questions this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, concerning telegrams from various builders associations across the country. I should like to say that I have those telegrams and that I hope to be able to reply to all of them tomorrow.
I think one of the misunderstandings, perhaps, has to do with the refund that will be paid under fixed price contracts. I would draw the attention of hon. members who asked these questions to this paragraph in the budget speech:
The government has considered the possible effects ol the removal of sales tax exemptions on firms working under fixed price contracts. Fixed price contracts, are common in the construction industry, and the amounts involved are frequently substantial. Relief will be provided in cases where

a manufacturer or contractor is prevented by a contract from including the new tax in his selling price.
This was provided for in section 13 of the resolution under part III of the Excise Tax Act which appears in Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday last.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question? Will this be for contracts entered into prior to June 13?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister, or any of the officials of his department at the United Nations, had discussions with the representatives of other governments in Ottawa or at the United Nations with respect to the admission of the two German states to the United Nations?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such discussions and I am advised by my officials that they have had no such discussions.



INQUIRY AS TO $3 PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of an omission in the budget of last week. When can the house expect an announcement regarding the government's decision against implementing the Prime Minister's pledge to western grain growers of $3 per bushel for the first 300 bushels of grain delivered in any crop year?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That was a commitment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of policy which, as I have already said, will be announced in due course, a question of policy which was strongly opposed by my hon. friend during the election.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Labour. The minister is, I assume, aware of the fact that the longshoremen's and warehousemen's union in Vancouver voted over the week end in favour of a strike. Would the minister use his good offices to bring about a settlement of the grievances of the union, since a strike on the west coast would hold up all shipments of wheat to China and other Asian countries. This would be a serious blow to the agricultural economy of the three prairie provinces.


Mr. Smallwood:: They are not selling any wheat to China.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman's question refers to the dispute I have in mind, and I think it does, I understand that there is some move by the parties to come together today for further discussions, for the purpose of resolving this dispute. I assure the hon. member that the offices of the Department of Labour are standing ready to make their services available at any time if such services might be helpful.


Reynold Rapp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware, is he, that they voted in favour of a strike?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister regarding the centennial celebrations. First, when may the house expect a progress report on plans of the national centennial administration, and second, is there any substance to the rumour that John Fisher, commissioner of the centennial administration, may be replaced at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council, who is dealing with these matters, can answer the questions if Your Honour considers them in order.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: I expect to be in a position to table the commissioners' first annual report before the end of this month. As to the second question, the answer is, of course, in the negative.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



WILL SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS EXCEED AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: have a question for the Minister of Labour. On Friday I asked the minister whether the cost of the new 11 per cent sales tax on building materials would exceed the $500 incentive bonus for winter construction. Has the minister had an opportunity to make the calculation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Upon considering the hon. member's question, it seems to me that assessing the exact impact of any particular tax is the responsibility of the Department of Finance, and in this case particularly Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be involved. The question is certainly of a statistical nature and I suggest the hon. member would get fuller information by placing it on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the crisis building up within the dairy industry with regard to the smaller take home pay for small farmers? If so, what is he prepared to do about it?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not aware of this information.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question. I have been talking to a number of dairy farmers in the Ottawa valley over the week end and they inform me that if changes are not made in dairy policy they will be going broke and selling their herds. Is the minister prepared to offer a free auction service to all dairy farmers who are forced to go out of business?


Harry William Hays: I should like the house to know that since the new dairy policy has been in effect the price of milk is up by 10 cents a hundred and 29 cents a hundred, higher than it has been for a number of years.



POLICIES OF U.S. COMPANIES RESPECTING CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to address a question to the Minister
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
of Trade and Commerce. This morning's Globe and Mail under an Ottawa dateline says:
The Department of Trade and Commerce has quietly shelved plans to question U.S. parent companies about policies governing their Canadian subsidiaries.
In view of the fact that the proposed questionnaire sought the removal of restrictions by United States companies on their Canadian subsidiaries to facilitate the increased sales of Canadian products abroad, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell the house why this questionnaire has been dropped?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I also saw the article in the Globe and Mail this morning, and it was news to me. I made inquiries and I found the original report regarding the proposed questionnaire arose from some tentative ideas discussed at the recent export trade promotion conference. No recommendation was made to me as minister, and I understand the officials have decided not to make a recommendation to me for the time being.
I can assure the house, however, that we in the department are always seeking the removal of restrictions imposed by parent United States companies upon their Canadian subsidiaries which in any way limit their exports.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he shares the feeling of his officials that this questionnaire should be dropped?


Mitchell William Sharp: Until the item appeared in the paper I had not heard of the proposed questionnaire. I intend to have some discussions with my officials, but I wish to make it clear that no decision which was made has been reversed in any way. This matter is under consideration among the officials and they have not yet brought it to my attention.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the United States company operating the D.E.W. line dismiss Canadian personnel on 24 hours notice because they refuse to accept a unilateral pay cut imposed by the company? I should also like to ask whether, in such a case, the company has authority to fly these people

out by Department of Transport planes to a city like Winnipeg, where they are deposited with little money although the company may owe them anything from $500 to $1,000 in back wages?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The form in which the hon. member has put his question is hypothetical and I cannot answer it according to the way in which he has worded it. However, I have been aware as of Thursday last that trouble has arisen between the company operating the D.E.W. line and the Canadian civilian personnel. On inquiring I have found that according to an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States, the relationship between the United States company and Canadian civilian personnel is established under the authority of the Department of Labour. I understand that my colleague the Minister of Labour has had a complete investigation made into this matter.


David Orlikow: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that this difficulty has arisen because of the demand of the workers there to join a union, and that part of the reason for their dismissal is their union activity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to have more information on this particular matter before replying on that aspect of the question. I realize that part of the difficulty stems from a proposed change in the wage rates by the company concerned. These rates must, in the ordinary course of events, be approved by the Department of Labour. I can assure the hon. member that the fair wages legislation will be applied in this particular case.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON THREATS FROM MANNED BOMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Norfhwesi Territories):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and it relates to information that has been elicited from the minister and his colleagues during the past two weeks about the phasing out of United States air force strategic air command bases at Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories, Churchill, Manitoba and the possible closure of some or all of the distant early warning radar installations. Has the minister anything to tell the house at this time about Canada's defence posture in the face of the obviously diminishing threat of attack by manned enemy aircraft?
Family Allowance Act


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have nothing further that I could add on orders of the day, particularly at this late hour of the evening. I will be glad to go into a full discussion of this matter when the defence committee meets, if that is their wish.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



FAMILY ALLOWANCE ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) to speak, may I suggest to him that he consider amending his motion to read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the govern-merit-
-and these are the words I would suggest______
-should consider the advisability of amending_
etc., rather than
-should amend-
I suggest this, because in its present form it is almost in the form of an order.


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: I will accept that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Family Allowance Act to provide:
(a)	for the doubling of the present rate at which family allowances are paid;
(b)	for the payment of allowances up to the age of 20 years if recipients continue their studies;
(c)	for an increase in allowances after age 20 if the recipient goes to university and to be, in effect, an anticipated salary during university attendance.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, I took it upon myself to submit this notice of motion, because I believe that it is not only very important, but of extreme urgency. On the other hand, I think I shall find much goodwill among the Liberal members, as family allowances were part of their platform in the last general election. I trust that they will be only too happy at the opportunity I am giving them of voting for the fulfilment of their promises. Indeed, they are boasting, and rightly so, of having initiated that legislation. That is another argument against letting those allowances become inefficient.

Family Allowance Act
On the other hand, the Conservatives who were in opposition in 1944, when the legislation was enacted, all voted in favour of it and they too seemed to give their entire support to the basic principles of the measure. Those principles were very ably expounded by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King himself, as can be seen on page 5538 of Hansard dated July 28, 1944, and I shall quote his very words, because I agree with the principles he announced at that time:
By the measure on family allowances before this House of Commons today, we are seeking to further the law of peace, work and health.
It also should be said that the legislation was intended to cope with what actually was a social emergency; it had been shown up by the 1941 census, when it was discovered that 84 per cent of all children under 16 were dependant on only 19 per cent of the gainfully employed. And I have no reason to doubt that this percentage has changed now.
No better argument could be found in favour of legislation whose object was to provide our future citizens with care, food, clothes and adequate housing, as well as other necessities of life. As I said, I have no reason to believe that conditions are very much changed today and that the reasons which were valid at that time are no longer so, because those allowances have lost about half their value.
During that same speech he made on July 28, 1944 and quoting the great Pasteur, Mr. Mackenzie King stated:
-two contrary laws seem to be wrestling with each other nowadays: the one, a law of blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction and forcing nations to be constantly ready for the battlefield-the other, a law of peace, work, and health, ever evolving new means of delivering man from the scourges which beset him.
Which of these two laws shall ultimately prevail, God alone knows.
I think this is an opportunity for hon. members to show which of these two laws they favour.
Another reason to ask for a raise of family allowances is provided to us by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King himself when he stated, again in the same speech:
It starts with the natural resources which have been the gift of the Creator to mankind. The natural resources of any country have not been given to individuals; they have been given to the entire community, to the entire people. That, I think, we must realize as a fundamental truth, and all our efforts at the improvement of social and industrial conditions must be based upon that knowledge. But what has come to be the accepted view as we have developed the institution of private property? Not industry as existing for the good

of all-but industry as a means of private profit and gain. Are we then to throw aside all belief in the nature of private property because of some evils which have grown out of that system? Before we do so, we would do well to examine the position of private property as to what it means in the way of initiative, in development of resources and making them available for service and use, what it may also mean in the betterment of the masses.
Of course, I could quote many more passages from that speech in favour of family allowances but I shall merely read another paragraph because it disposes of the objections which could be put forward against the proposal now before the house. Indeed, Mr. Mackenzie King stated:
My own belief is that the measure itself is going to create so much in the way of employment that the national income will be so increased that we shall find it possible not only to have this class of social enactment self sustaining but be able as a consequence to have as well a reduction of debt and taxation.
Those are words which could fill with joy the heart of a good Social Crediter and would have no false ring in the mouth of our leader.
As for the Conservatives, I should like to recall what was their stand on that matter when this legislation was passed.
Mr. Diefenbaker rising in his place, as reported on page 5460 of Hansard for July 27, 1944 said:
With the objective provided for in this bill, there can be no disagreement; for if I understand it aright it means that through this measure an endeavour will be made to achieve equal opportunity, particularly for those in the lower income brackets, and to give many who today are denied freedom from fear and freedom from want the hope of something better in the future than this world and this country have seen before.
And further on, he quotes the report of the national resources development for 1943 which was placed before the president of the United States in January of that year. The report said:
There must be the fullest possible development of the human personality, in relation to the common good, in a framework of freedom and rights, of justice, liberty and equality and the consent of the governed, as the means of protecting justice, freedom and democracy.
We, in the parliaments of the empire, must recognize that the state must guarantee and underwrite equal access to security, to education, to nutrition and to health for all.
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as all those reasons I quoted as given by those hon. gentlemen were true and accurate in 1944, they are still true and accurate today for the simple reason that after creating family allowances, we have not been cautious enough to upgrade them

gradually to cope with the cost of living which continued to rise and is still rising nowadays. Furthermore, when we talk about doubling those allowances, we are not exaggerating, since countries much poorer than Canada, countries like France, for instance, actually give twice as much as we do.
In other words, due to inflation born of the present system, which is not a Social Credit system, family allowances have lost more than half their purchasing power; consequently they render slightly less than half the services they were meant to render, services we boasted about so much in 1944.
This is why, to widen their scope and to give them their true meaning, we first of all suggest that the present family allowances be doubled, in order to permit young people of this country who have the necessary aptitudes to go through the primary and high school systems and we suggest that family allowances be paid until age 20, provided the recipients stay in school and that after age 20, should our future citizens attend university, that they be paid an allowance in order that they may be enabled to attend university without always having to wonder what their parents are denying themselves and the other children in the family to enable them to stay in school. This would equalize opportunities for children of large families and others. This would also give our country an opportunity to take advantage of the many talents lost from day to day because parents do not have the means to keep their children at school, for everyone knows that children with the required intelligence and qualifications to benefit from higher education are not found solely in wealthy families.
It is for all the reasons I have already mentioned that I have the right to expect support from the two old line parties in this house, for I refuse to believe that the government will dare to break its word and try to shirk its responsibilities to the children of this country. To do that, it would have to go back on its word and prove disloyal to the memory of its most revered leaders, the Hon. Mr. King and the Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. That would be especially true in the case of the latter who, during the last years he was active in politics, had managed to become known as the great protector of Canadian children, so much so that in Quebec he is still called Uncle Louis.
It is hard to understand why the two old line parties have been so picayune in the matter of family allowances. They have recognized, up to a certain point at least, the principle that all social legislation should be geared to the cost of living. That principle is generally accepted in industry and it is 28902-5-80
Family Allowance Act
even considered natural that salaries should be geared to the cost of living.
But as far as family allowances are concerned, practically nothing has been done. Would it be that powerful secret forces are opposed to it because it would be to their advantage to destroy that main cell of the life of our nation which is the family? And please let us not hear again the old argument to the effect that we have no money, because there are many more appropriate areas where we could save for example, the field of nuclear weapons which will be obsolete in a year or two, and even the whole defence system where the Glassco report shows us cases of extensive and important waste.
I hope that members of all parties will vote for this motion so as to put a stop to what is said about them among the people. They find all the money they want when it is a matter of planning destruction and death but they cannot find any money when it comes to planning for life and construction.
(Text):


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) has three parts to it. First, it would double the present rate of family allowances. Second, it would authorize continuation of payment to 20 years of age while the child on whose behalf the allowance is paid is attending school. Third, the resolution proposes an increase in the allowance after the age of 20 if the recipient goes to university, to be in effect an anticipated salary during university attendance.
The hon. member for Charlevoix quoted very convincingly from the statement of the prime minister of the day at the time the allowances were first established. As was indicated, the measure was passed in August, 1944 and payments were made effective the first week in July, 1945. When the program began payments were made on behalf of 2,956,844 children at an annual rate of $232,700,000. For the present fiscal year the estimated expenditure is $542,900,000 on behalf of close to 6,700,000 children. Payments are made on behalf of more than one third of the population of Canada who are within the age group up to 16 years of age.
When the program was first introduced the payments were on a graduated scale starting with $5 a month up to 6 years of age, then $6 up to 9 years of age, $7 up to 12 years of age and $8 between the years of 13 to 15 inclusive. At that time the rates were reduced in the case of large families. For the fifth child $1 less was paid, for the sixth child $2 less, for the seventh child $2 less and for the eighth child $3 less. The changes

Family Allowance Act
which were made in 1949 abolished this discrimination against larger families which it weis difficult, it is true, to justify.
In 1957 further changes were introduced and at the present time the rates are $6 a month for children who have not yet attained their tenth birthday and $8 a month for children between their tenth Eind sixteenth birthdays. Estimates for the 1963-64 fiscal year show an increase of not quite $11 million, or of the order of 2 per cent of what was paid before. For previous years the rate of growth of our child population has been in excess of this percentage.
In viewing this resolution I think it is useful to review very briefly another program that exists in every province of Canada. I refer to the provincially maintained programs of payments for needy mothers and I should like to do so for two purposes. First, it shows roughly the order of magnitude of these payments which are made generally speaking, as the result of investigation of need, to widows, deserted wives, women whose husbands are in penal institutions or mental hospitals, separated mothers and in some cases unmarried mothers.
I should like to refer to a study made by the deputy minister of the department for the year 1955 which showed that the order of magnitude-
(Translation):


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member is speaking about provincial laws instead of dealing with the motion under consideration.
(Text):


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is my intention to refer to this to show the order of magnitude of payments under a program which is designed to meet certain tests of need. Roughly $8 million in family allowances was paid in 1954 to mothers in receipt of mothers' allowances while under the provincial programs roughly three times that amount or a little under $24 million was paid to these same people. I am referring to this because the latter part of the resolution of the hon. member in particular anticipates a considerable extension of the role and purpose of family allowances and I have cited it merely as an indication of the order of magnitude of expenditure related directly to need requirement.
I think that in judging family allowances you cannot ignore the fact that this program is in existence and represents a fairly substantial welfare program of which Canadians are proud. When the case for family allowances was argued, and many worthy people in Canada and in other parts of the world advocated the adoption of the program, roughly four general arguments were put

forward. The first one relates to criteria for a rational wage policy. We had the experience of a majority report of the national wage stabilization board in 1943 which recommended family allowances as a reasonable method for providing for need where circumstances dictated that the economy had to exercise a maximum of restraint on other fronts.
Most employers have a problem in setting out a wage. When they find that they have to pay the same amount to a single person on their payroll as to a married person with dependants, this frequently creates a number of anomalies in the wage structure and variations that cannot be justified purely in terms of the contribution of that individual. The family allowance movement was early recognized as an orderly approach to a wage structure and it was advocated among others by the late Lord Keynes for that purpose, and also persons in Canada including Father LeBel who published in 1929 one of the earliest Canadian documents setting forth-[DOT]
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member is wandering away from the subject matter now under consideration. Could he be reminded to stick to the motion now before us, that is whether or not family allowances will be increased.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member who, at the present time, is discussing the principle of family allowances. I think that the hon. member is perfectly within the rules.
(Text):


Cyril Lloyd Francis: If the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would pay attention he might ascertain my purpose is to indicate the grounds that were put forward by the earliest proponents of family allowance, what they hoped to achieve by such measures. We, on this side of the house, were responsible for putting this legislation on the statute books. To suggest that we are in any way unsympathetic towards this is a gross distortion. We know what the purpose of the family allowance program is. There will be a measure put before this house which will deal, in part, with the resolution which the hon. member has in mind. I hope that by the time I am through with my remarks the hon. member will have some second thoughts concerning some aspects of the resolution.
The question of the development of a wage policy, I said, was one of the grounds used in the debate on this issue and was one to which the government of the day gave a good deal of attention. This was also a measure

to stimulate post-war prosperity in the tor-ties, toward the end of the war. The advisers of the government were very much concerned with a measure which would provide a large amount of consumer purchasing power in the anticipated slackening off which would be part of the story of the adjustment from wartime to peacetime. The family allowance measure was put forward with the full support of the fiscal advisers of the government who felt it was an appropriate piece of legislation for Canada at that time.
The third reason which is often advanced, and which I do not think carries as much weight with us, is the suggestion that this is a positive instrument of population or demographic policy. In many parts of the world this is true. Many countries have adopted family allowance measures with a very different approach from the Canadian approach. They feel in France, for example, that an equalization fund for private employers should have a set objective to build up family allowances to something like 25 per cent of wages. Under those circumstances, there is some evidence that family allowance policy has had some effect upon family formation.
People who have studied our program, or attempted to draw comparisons with other parts of the world, had concluded that our program has had no significant effect upon the Canadian birth rate or family formation. For instance, our neighbour to the south does not have a family allowance program. During the ten years subsequent to 1946, the birth rate per thousand in Canada rose 10.4 points and in the United States 12.4 points. True it rose from a lower base in the United States in the first instance. The general picture of demographic trends and those who have advanced demographic purposes for family allowance legislation, usually suggest that in the case of a country such as Canada the most significant factors are the general level of employment and income. Thus, the effects are very much greater than anything that can be traced to family allowance purposes.
The resolution, Mr. Speaker, I think has to stand on the basic purposes for which it was advanced by the government of the day. This relates to a measure of social justice for which we all have the very greatest sympathy. I listened to the hon. member for Charlevoix when he started to quote the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in the debate, and to suggest correctly that 84 per cent of the children were supported by 19 per cent of the wage earners, one fifth of the wage earners of the country. This is a proportion which seems to be borne out in widely different circumstances and cultures. The basic inequality of such a thing is the real reason
28902-5-80i
Family Allowance Act
for family allowances. They are, fundamentally, an attack on poverty which is associated with large families. They represent a measure of equality of opportunity for Canadian children, and under such circumstances they have been the bulwark, fundamentally, of our entire structure of social security.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said the resolution had three arms to it and I have indicated the general grounds which the measure was implemented and defended not only in Canada but in other parts of the world. I give full credit to the people who have consistently taken an interest in this legislation, an interest that goes beyond the superficial. However, we must bear in mind that the question of the extension of family allowances to meet the purpose of higher education calls for further examination.
Our party is committed to extending family allowances to children at school to the age of 18 years. At the appropriate time, I am sure legislation will be brought before this house to implement the commitment which we firmly made during the course of the election campaign. However, I presume one of the purposes of this measure would be to extend family allowances and make them the basis of a salary for students attending university. It is significant that in one of the early literature or the statements made at the time was there such a purpose indicated. Our party is on the record as supporting a program of national scholarships, which I am certain is a more logical, more satisfactory approach towards permitting worthy students of modest circumstances to achieve a higher education. I do not believe that the extension of the family allowance to $18 per month is going to give the person attending university a large salary. I do not believe the hon. member seriously believes for one minute this sum would be adequate for the purpose which the hon. member has outlined.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have an aspect of this matter which I am sure the mover of the resolution will want to consider very carefully. We have had a budget placed before this house on which there will be a debate in the near future. We noted that budgetary expenditures were in the area of $6,500 million. I have indicated that the estimated costs of the family allowances for the present year exceed $530 million. The effect of the proposed measure would be to add over $530 million to the budget deficit which would have to be faced by this house. The hon. member has indicated that he is in favour of economy in many other areas of government operation. I wonder if he has given thought to the implications of continuing the federal government in the field of fiscal relations to this magnitude at a time when a question has

Family Allowance Act
been raised concerning the appropriate share of various tax fields for the provincial, municipal and federal authorities.
Certainly, the raising of this sum of money through federal taxation, and the spending of it in the form in which family allowances are now spent, would have some interesting redistribution effects. Very few people have studied the regional effects of the redistribution of family allowances. One of the gentlemen who did attempt a very good study is the man to whom I referred earlier, the present deputy minister of national welfare. In an article published in International Labour Review for March, 1957, he cited some facts to which I should like to refer.
For the fiscal year 1954-55 the four Atlantic provinces provided 3.8 per cent of the direct tax revenues of the federal authority and received 12.8 per cent of the family allowance payments. The prairie provinces were the source of 11.4 per cent of direct tax revenues and received 17.7 per cent of family allowance payments. The province of Quebec was the source of 26.1 per cent of direct tax revenues and received 31.7 per cent of the family allowance payments. B.C. was the source of 9.6 per cent direct tax revenues and received 7.5 per cent of family allowance payments. Ontario was the source of 49 per cent direct tax revenues and received 30.2 per cent of family allowance payments.
I think there is a great deal of evidence that this redistribution is a highly desirable form of income redistribution. It goes from the wealthy areas to those with less capacity to support the general level of welfare and educational services, and to provide such basic things as food, clothing and shelter. This is one of the very good aspects of the program.
The program uses the federal authority directly as a source of raising funds and dispensing funds, and when we come to look at the redistribution within families we find some very interesting things. The study to which I refer covered the year ending August 31, 1948 and I have been unable to find any subsequent studies. In fact I think it is time another was undertaken, but the study showed that for all families receiving family allowances the allowances amounted to 4.9 per cent of net income.
Families with three or more children, and with incomes below $3,000, benefited to the greatest extent. Generally speaking the real impact of the family allowances program is found on families earning more than $3,000 and with no more than three children, and here the percentages of income tend to become significant. In the case of families with five and more children, family allowances were something like 12.8 per cent of family income.

This is a very significant redistribution measure, and when we review the program today I think we recognize that the impact that was feared in 1944 by two of the three major organized labour bodies has not come to pass.
There is a wide degree of support, almost unanimous, from all parties to the program. The program itself is basically a measure of social justice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words in support of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), and I hope that government members will allow it to be adopted in the best interests of Canadians.
We, on this side of the house, included in our program during the last election campaign, an item designed to extend family allowances to children up to 18 years. I was very surprised to note that in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), there was no mention of family allowances. It would have been better to deal with this matter rather than increase defence expenditures and purchase nuclear weapons-against the wish of the Canadian people-which will cost taxpayers several million dollars more.
In my opinion, the present government would have been better advised to convince the Minister of Finance to announce an increase in family allowances, and to extend their application so as to include children up to 18 years, which would only constitute a normal adjustment in view of the exorbitant cost of living.
Family allowances should also have a greater social character and be more in line with Christian principles. It would be advisable, in my opinion, that the tenth child get more than the ninth, and the ninth more than the eighth.
The hon. member refers in his bill to the question of education. I believe he is wrong, because education matters come under provincial jurisdiction and, as I have always advocated, we should return to the provinces their taxation rights and they will be able to provide for the education of children. Family allowances should be increased instead, according to a graduated rate, so as to encourage Canadians to raise their children in better conditions.
I support this measure unreservedly in all respects and, as I said earlier, there was an

important item in our program during the last election campaign concerning family allowances.
I hope that members of the house, especially those from Quebec and Ontario, will not take up the rest of the time to kill this very important bill, likely to provide great assistance to our Canadian families.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: I only wish to say a few words on this motion and to congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) for bringing it forward. During the recent election campaign all political parties supported the idea of supplying more equal distribution of wealth through social justice, or whatever term one wishes to call it. The matter of family allowances was also supported by all parties.
Like the speaker immediately preceding me I was surprised to see this was omitted from the budget, and unlike some of the previous speakers I am not so convinced that the government will introduce measures along this line, unless it is prodded into doing so. I have always felt family allowances were to provide for the education of young children, and when the act was originally introduced the age of 16 years was the average age at which children finished their education and went to work. However, we have moved very rapidly in the educational field, and 16 years is no longer the age at which children go to work. In many cases their education continues for another four or five years, and rather than stipulate the age of 20 I believe these allowances should be continued to the age of 21.
I have children in that category myself and I have found no lessening of their expenses after the age of 16 years. As a matter of fact it seems to be more expensive to outfit children after the age of 16; and so not only do I think the age limit should be extended but payments should be on a graduated scale, rising with the age of the recipient.
The question of raising the allowance, or doubling it, is one for the house or a committee of the house to discuss, but no matter what decision is reached I believe we should include a new provision gearing family allowances to the cost of living so that we will not continuously have to raise this matter in parliament. The country has watched the gymnastics that have taken place in social security, particularly in relation to old age pensions, with one political party trying to outdo another. I only hope this does not happen in the field of family allowances, and that allowances will be brought into line with the purchasing power that was originally intended. That would probably increase them
Family Allowance Act
by at least 50 per cent, and with the new provision that they be geared to the cost of living they can be taken out of the realm of political promises at election time.
I am not too well informed as to what has been done in other countries or in what way social security programs have been applied relating to this matter of student salaries. To my mind this is a new area and is one which I think many people in Canada in the educational field would want to consider before we adopted in a family allowance bill. There would probably be those who would want to discuss the constitutionality of this problem. I am quite sure there would be some who would think that if the federal government were to pay a salary to students attending university, some of the provincial autonomy in the field of education would be superimposed on the federal government. I am not sure that this is true, but I think there are those who would argue this way. This might be a limitation to our passing an increase in family allowances at this time, and I hope the mover of the resolution will indicate either that this question will be considered or he is willing to consider an amendment that would allow us at another time to discuss the question separately from family allowances.
I believe family allowances have been used to great advantage by Canadian families. I know personally of hundreds and hundreds of cases where children who are now attending school would not have been able to do so if it were not for the limited assistance that is given by the family allowance. In many cases this amounts to a very large portion of the cash income of the family. I believe this measure has served a need and that governments are being very slow in waiting for the push that is sometimes given by elections in regard to legislating family allowance increases. I hope the government will consider sending this subject to a committee, as they have other subjects, where it can be discussed. The merits of the two proposals, which are fairly separate in my opinion, could be discussed in committee. There would then be no delay in the implementing of a large increase in the family allowance and the extension of that allowance to take into consideration the changes which have been made in our educational system in allowing our children a longer period of education before they enter the labour market.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks about this motion, I wish to point out how unfortunate it is that some members take part in the debate on such an important matter solely to make political capital.

Family Allowance Act
I am of the opinion that an act should be adopted to make it impossible to treat in such a way social legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that the Family Allowances Act is certainly, and we are all agreed on that, one of the best pieces of social legislation ever passed by the house.
I do not want to take up the valuable time of the house to praise the benefits of that act. I only want to make humble suggestions which, if they were implemented, would make this act much more effective and more profitable for the many families who benefit from it.
At the end of March 1962, 2,649,317 families were in receipt of family allowances for 6,562,287 children, that is for more than a third of the total population of Canada. Net payments for the year were $520,781,193.
In actual fact, what did the Family Allowances Act cost the country the amount of $520,781,193 during the fiscal year ended March 1962?
No, Mr. Speaker, because even though that sum was paid through the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, by virtue of the same act, has collected many thousand dollars, the exact amount being impossible to estimate. This statement may astonish many members but you will easily understand what I mean after the following explanations.
On page 2 of the income tax return T-l, paragraph 2, we can read: Exemption for children qualified for family allowances- $300, and for each child not qualified for family allowances-$550.
If you figure it out, here are the results you will get. A person with an annual income of $3,000 and who has a child is entitled to an exemption of $2,350 if the child is eligible for family allowances; so his taxable income will be $650, which represents an income tax payment of $80. If the child were not qualified for family allowances, his exemption would then amount to $2,550 and his taxable income would be $450; consequently, the amount he would have to pay as income tax would be $56, that is $24 he must pay as additional income tax because he receives $72 in family allowances. We may conclude that that person must pay as income tax a third of the amount received in family allowances.
We see also that with an income of $5,000, a family of four children will receive $288 in family allowances, but the father will have to pay $113 more in income tax, which means

that the family allowances in this case come to $175 for the year. So, for each child, the government does not grant $6, but in fact $3.60 a month.
Let us consider the case of a father of eight with an annual income of $8,000. Because he receives an amount of $648 in family allowances, instead of paying $182 in income tax, he will have to pay the Department of National Revenue the amount of $442, that is a difference of $260 in additional income tax.
And the same arithmetic can be repeated for the 2,649,317 families receiving family allowances.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the house be adjourned because there is no quorum.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, may I go on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No.
(Text):


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, might I ask that those hon. members from the Social Credit party who just left the chamber be returned?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there are 20 members in the house. If hon. members leave the chamber it becomes difficult to count. Some hon. members come in and walk out, which makes it difficult to ascertain the number present. Perhaps those hon. members who are standing would sit down. That would help us make an exact count.
I declare that there is at this moment a quorum in the house.
(Translation):


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: So now, you see what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Having withheld part of the family allowances on the father's revenue the government pays it back to the children. This may be a good thing for certain families, but for most of them I do not think it is really useful.
In 1944, when this legislation was enacted, the amount of the family allowances was certainly chosen from several amounts after a careful study of the cost of living. In 1963, the cost of living has gone up again, going from 74.6 per cent in 1944 to 132.3 per cent in 1963, an increase of 57.7 per cent. Now, family allowances were increased by 11 per cent in 1957 and have remained at that level since then.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when a piece of social legislation is enacted it should provide that the amounts paid will be reviewed every five years and, if necessary, ad-

justed to the cost of living index of the current year, on the basis of the cost of living at the time the legislation was first enacted. In that way it would be possible to avoid, during an election campaign-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I move the adjournment of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not see on what the hon. member bases himself to rise in the middle of a speech to move the adjournment of the house. The hon. member for Longueuil has the floor at present and I fail to see how he is transgressing the rules of the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Again I rise on a point of order and on a question of privilege. A short while ago, we did not have a quorum and the adjournment was delayed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declared that we had a quorum. There is certainly no question of privilege nor a point of order.
The hon. member for Longueuil has the floor and I would ask him to continue his remarks.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Thus, we would prevent politicians of all parties from promising during an electoral campaign that they will raise family allowances, old age pensions, etc., and it would force them to find something new to talk about.
Should family allowances be doubled or tripled? I would not know, but after a review of the situation, we should set the amount of the allowances on the basis of the change in the cost of living. To further improve this legislation, we should not tax family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if these few suggestions were put into effect, they will restore to the act the full purpose for which it was enacted.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate on the motion submitted by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger)-or is it Charlevoix-Montmorency-to amend the Family Allowances Act.
However, I must express my disapproval of what happened here a short while ago when a step was taken to prevent a member from expressing his views-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the hon. member has
Family Allowance Act
no right to impute motives to a member who tried to exercise his rights in the house as he saw fit.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I say that I was not speaking of any member in particular but of what happened in the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is against the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to come back to the resolution under consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member has attacked a certain hon. member, could I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It did not
seem to me that the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry was attacking anyone. He had treaded on somewhat delicate ground but as a point of order was raised, I called him to order and I feel that the matter is closed.


Gérald Laniel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In intended to deal with the over-all question of family allowances and to find what would be the proper time for a complete study of that proposal, especially in view of the fact that this country now has a government which made it clear to the Canadian people that the legislation to be introduced in the house within its four year term would include a bill to extend family allowances to students.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the problem which has not been touched upon during this debate and I should like to discuss it briefly. It has been said-and the hon. member for Charlevoix mentioned this point-that the cost of living index has gone up while family allowances have remained practically unchanged since their introduction in 1944.
But they forgot to mention that during the same period, there has been a general increase in the income and salary of Canadians. In fact, Canadians get a much higher income now than in 1944.
Mr. Speaker, I am not at all against the increase of family allowances but I really think that the question should be fully studied, that we should not accept only the favourable arguments but that the whole question should be analysed, and that perhaps we should go beyond the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix.

Inquiries of the Ministry
It is possible that we may have to review all the aspects of the present social security program to determine clearly in which field the needs are greater or more urgent, so as to achieve a better distribution of the public funds available, which would be more profitable to all heads of family in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in 1944, the average salary in Canada was $31.85. In 1949, it was $42.96 and now it has reached $80.55, which represents an increase of over 150 per cent while the cost of living index has gone up by only 80 per cent.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' bills having expired, and it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the Minister of Finance to get the impression that he is the only minister who is being favoured with questions today. Earlier today I did send notice to the Minister of Transport of my intention to ask him a question. My question is this. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are using strikebound Pacific Western Airlines planes between Calgary and Edmonton and, if so, is it the intention of the minister to take steps to see that government personnel use the alternate means of transportation available, so as to avoid their participation in strike breaking activities?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I must tell him that it seems to have a good many assertions in it and I hope he will not expect me to accept all the assertions. The answer to the first part of the question is no. As to the second part of the question, since it has to do with the R.C.M.P. I will draw it to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Justice.
[Mr. Laniel.1
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF CARAVELLE PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister confirm the purchasing of Caravelle jet aircraft by Trans-Canada Air Lines?
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such purchase made and I would expect that it would be some considerable time before any purchase of planes is made by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
(Translation):


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, following the answer given by the Minister of Transport, I should like now to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Would the Minister of Finance exert pressure on the Minister of Transport in order that he may buy Caravelle aircraft; for, if one considers that these planes will be built in Canada, this means, from the point of view of our trade balance, that an additional amount of about $200 million, a substantial amount, would come to Canada.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no necessity for me to exert pressure on anyone.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would he inform the house on what date and for what reason Mr. Placide Pilon, assistant caretaker at the Batoche historical site, was relieved of his duties?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and I will try to let my hon. friend know tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement by the management of the Canadian National Railways of their intention to study the question of the discontinuation of service of more than 1,000 miles of track as a first step in a reasonable approach to this problem before any further action is taken, would the minister consider consulting with the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway with a view to that company taking a similar attitude prior to any action being taken with respect to abandonment of lines or discontinuance of any passenger service, particularly the Kettle Valley Railway?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret I am not familiar with all the details of the operation of the Kettle Valley Railway, but I can assure my hon. friend that with regard to the question of railway line abandonment, about which he has been reading in the press in the last few days, the applications or notices of intention filed by Canadian National Railways were being given in pursuance of an arrangement made at a meeting with the government in January of this year. The arrangement was that the notices of intention with regard to the prospective branch line abandonments in western Canada and the three prairie provinces would be filed but no action taken to commence the hearings until they had all been filed, and no abandonment action taken subsequent to that until there was an opportunity for the government to determine policy and the legislation arising out of the Mac-Pherson royal commission.
The further question he has asked today refers to the Canadian Pacific Railway, in an attempt to obtain the same information from them. In his question today he has spoken about the Kettle Valley Railway in British Columbia, and I will have to look into the matter to see whether that railway is included in the category of railways which was dealt with in the arrangement made with the government in January last.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE RESPECTING MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could he advise the house whether
Inquiries of the Ministry he has received letters from any provincial premier or minister of any provincial cabinet requesting a federal-provincial meeting or consultation before further consideration of the municipal loan fund legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall receiving any such representations but I shall be glad to look into the matter and if any have arrived I will let my hon. friend know tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Royal asked me a few minutes ago whether any communications had been received from the provinces regarding a request for postponement of consideration of the municipal development fund legislation. I am reminded that one such communication has been received, which I had forgotten about when I gave my tentative answer before, from the premier of Quebec, and it requested postponement of the consideration of the bill until the provinces had their meeting, which I believe is to take place in August.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Edmonton West asked a question in relation to the strikebound facilities of Northwest Industries Limited and whether there had been a transference of the work load from Northwest Industries Limited to other areas. Regarding plant airframe requirements, the answer is in the negative. No requirements which were actually placed with the company prior to the strike have been moved elsewhere. Northwest Industries Limited has maintained a skeleton staff of about 40 employees who are completing as best they may the necessary urgent work of the R.C.A.F. In respect of certain instruments a transfer of intended work was made from Northwest Industries Limited to another firm, and one reason for this was that the instruments were urgently required on aircraft about to be shipped out to India. These were Harvard aircraft.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday

Inquiries of the Ministry I promised to give an answer today to a question put by the hon. member for Skeena on June 5, 1963, about the return of documents such as landing papers, passports and citizenship certificates seized in the case of Chinese people who are alleged to have entered Canada illegally.
There are two types of occasions on which documents have been or are obtained either by officers of the R.C.M.P. or immigration officers in matters of illegal Chinese immigration. First, there are the cases of direct investigation by the R.C.M.P. of illegal immigration activities, such as the one made some three years ago. I am advised that the documents seized on these occasions have been seized in each case under the authority of search warrants and that they have been or are returned to the persons from whom they were taken on completion of the R.C.M.P. investigation.
Then there are the occasions when an individual has made or has indicated an intention to make a statement as to his identity to an immigration officer. On these occasions such documents as landing cards, citizenship certificates and passports are retained from the immigrant by the immigration officer. They are not returned to him but are sent to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for retention pending the adjustment of status. There is, of course, no point in leaving these documents in the possession of these immigrants in the meantime, inasmuch as the status purported to be certified by them is false. However, once the immigrant's status has been adjusted these documents are reissued under the changed identity and remitted to the immigrant.
If my hon. friend will let me have the name of any Chinese whose documents have been taken from him and not returned or replaced, I shall certainly look into this.
(Translation):



RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO PUT QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I do not propose any real changes from what was suggested on Friday. I indicated that the resolution respecting the Atlantic development board would be the second item of business for today, and we have got on to it, and I am grateful to hon. members for having let us make a start on this measure. We shall continue with it tomorrow and, I hope, get first reading of the bill, because I think it would be helpful to have the bill for study between now and the time when it could be taken up again after the budget debate.\nI indicated on Friday that there would be two possibilities after that. One was the department of industry bill and the other the resolution preceding the measure respecting the Department of Agriculture. I think it will probably be more satisfactory to take the second reading of the department of industry bill, because we would probably want to start a fresh day on the Department of Agriculture measure, if we could. The department of industry has already been debated a great deal. However, should we get second reading and the committee stage of the department of industry through, then we would, perforce, start on the resolution respecting the Department of Agriculture. I hold out that bait to hon. gentlemen opposite. On Wednesday we shall begin the budget debate and carry on until it is completed.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As witnessed by page 1163 of Hansard for last Friday, the Secretary of State mentioned the fact that a series of questions have been put on the order paper. He stated first that this could become, for many, a way of making a mockery of parliament. A little further, he
[Mr. Favreau.l

said that was a rather unexpected and, in his opinion, unfortunate development.
First of all, I should like to say that it is the privilege of hon. members to ask any questions they want. I should like to add that the series of questions had been prepared in advance and that we had asked the minister whether he would prefer to answer them directly or whether he would like us to put them on the order paper. That question was addressed to the minister as follows:
(Text):
I have a series of questions on bilingualism in your department. Would you prefer that I send these questions to you directly in order not to have too many questions on the order paper?
(Translation):
The Minister of National Defence replied as follows:
(Text):
Whatever you wish.
(Translation):
Then, we sent him the questions directly, without putting them on the order paper.
However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this suggestion to us:
(Text):
May I suggest that your questions be put on the order paper in view of the interest of all hon. members in the matter of bilingualism.
(Translation):
And it was signed "Mitchell Sharp". Out of four ministers, two expressed the wish that we put those questions on the order paper and two, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of National Defence, would rather have us proceed directly in order not to overload the order paper even more.
I still have further questions to ask, and I shall continue to send them directly to the ministers, if they are willing to answer them, in order not to overload the order paper. However, I feel it is the privilege of members of this house to put all questions they see fit on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last

the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chap-delaine) asked me a question to which 1 promised to give a reply today.
I presume that the report to which he referred was a dispatch from the Canadian Press in Creston, B.C. which appeared in the newspapers on June 14.
I looked into that news report and I really cannot add anything to what I said that same day in answer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that it is not proper to make details public while negotiations are still going on.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
As the so-called "commissioner" has proved he is unable to hold an inquiry, is the President of the Privy Council ready to tell the house that no public money will be spent for the financing of the "Gregoire commission?"


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out that when a government inquiry lasts two whole years, the one I am conducting cannot be considered inefficient after only two weeks. Before passing judgment the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency would be well advised to find out about the time usually allotted to inquiry commissions.
(Text):


MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to promote increased employment in Canada by the provision of financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities, the object of such loans being to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate their capital works programs subject to the approval of the provinces concerned: and for this purpose to provide a special fund in a consolidated revenue fund not exceeding four hundred million dollars to be available for the making of loans to municipalities and certain other municipal authorities for specific municipal capital works projects: to establish a municipal development and loan board to administer the fund so provided; to authorize the acceptance of municipal debentures for any loans so made; to authorize a measure of forgiveness in respect of any loans so made, depending upon the date of completion of the projects for 28902-5-81i
17, 1963	1259
Municipal Development and Loan Board which such loans are made; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: In rising to speak on this resolution, I do so with some hesitation because of the extremely active debate which has ranged in this house for the last day or so as a result of the irregularities in the preparation of the budget. One's mind has wandered far, but I shall endeavour to get back to this resolution dealing with loans to municipalities. I noticed that the fund will be established out of the consolidated revenue fund and will be $400 million. The resolution proclaimed that the main objective of this measure was to increase employment. I must say that I am doubtful the objective will be achieved, and I will explain my reasons for this as I go along.
First of all, there has been a limitation placed on the use of this money. The minister stated that he estimated this measure might cover half the normal borrowings of the municipalities and might cover two thirds of the cost of the projects. He went on to explain the rate of interest and the forgiveness features.
In so far as the $400 million is concerned, the other night it was pointed out that in the last five years the previous government made $900 million available to the municipalities through the winter works program.
This was directly for use during winter time when unemployment is highest, but here are $400 million to be spread over three years and to be used any time of the year. This is one of the basic differences.
The last time something like this was attempted was in 1938 when an act was passed called the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Under it money was to be lent at 2 per cent interest, and there was a definite regulation clause written into the act dealing with the amount of money that could be lent to any particular municipality. It may be such a provision will be written into the bill that will follow this resolution. Section 6 of the 1938 act stipulated that loans to municipalities should relate to the percentage their populations bore to the population of the country, but I fear that under this legislation loans will be made on a wide open basis to the larger municipalities, and that they will gobble up the greatest part of the $400 million, possibly within the first year.
Hon. members should keep those remarks in mind, and should also consider what has taken place here during the last couple of days with the government showing a definite favouritism to Toronto, Bay street interests,
1260	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board and to investment brokers. It is quite conceivable that most of this fund will be channelled into the larger centres. This is one of the greatest fears I have in regard to the proposed bill.
I believe the money should be lent on a per capita basis, giving each municipality a chance to borrow for projects which would give a long term return. To set up a municipal loan fund for three years is not enough. It cannot possibly begin to become a revolving fund in any sense of the term because most municipal loans are taken out for 20, 25 or 30 years. I might add that the interest rate is not particularly appealing either.
I hope the forgiveness clause in the proposed bill will be as good as the forgiveness clause with regard to sewerage projects undertaken under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during recent years, when 25 per cent was written off if capital works projects were undertaken within a specified time.
These are things which should be considered with regard to this municipal loan fund before it is held up to mayors, reeves and councillors all across the country as the answer to their hopes and prayers for money to develop their municipalities. We in the province of Alberta do not look forward to this fund with any real interest because we have one great fear that loans may be made without any great deal of judgment with regard to their efficiency. By that I mean there is no real objection towards making a 20 year loan to a municipality for a capital works project that will continue to give employment, but there is towards making loans for structures which will be outdated within that time and will require to be replaced by more modern structures before the original loans are written off.
Municipalities in Alberta are also notable for the heavy debt load they carry already, and this loan fund cannot be held up as the answer to their hopes. This subject has been dealt with already during the debate and I do not want to put the figures on record another time; but what the municipalities need are more generous grants towards capital works projects, and not necessarily more loans which will place them further and further in debt.
The Alberta legislature has set up the Alberta Finance Corporation which makes loans to municipalities. When it was first set up it made loans at 2.5 per cent interest. Now the interest is up to 4.5 per cent, and even 5 per cent in many cases. Municipalities in Alberta have taken great advantage of this act and many improvements have been made in both the smaller and larger centres.


One principal necessity is for government at all levels to look ahead and plan ahead in the financing of capital works projects. Municipalities must gauge with reasonable accuracy their estimated population growth before determining the need for loans. This holds true for municipalities, towns and cities, and they must be able to gauge their needs 10 and 20 years from now.
While I hesitate to agree that this loan will solve the unemployment problem, I think that loans made to municipalities for the construction of works which will continue to create employment in the years ahead would be much more beneficial than undertaking projects which provide jobs while they are being built, but after they are completed do not provide any more jobs. With the limiting factors placed upon loans under the proposed legislation, no loans will be made to municipalities for sewerage, water, and many other types of projects which would be more beneficial and helpful in curing unemployment.
We have heard considerable talk about whether a municipal loan fund should be established out of the consolidated revenue fund or as an arm of the Bank of Canada. I do not think it makes any difference, but we have to have close co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments because the provinces, through their direction of road programs and water development projects can control and regulate the growth of municipalities, towns and cities. For that reason I think the federal government in setting up the proposed board should keep close liaison with the provincial authorities.
That is an important point to consider at this time because we have just heard an answer on orders of the day to the effect that one of the provinces has asked the government to slow up, and perhaps not to pass the bill that will spring out of the resolution we are now debating, until after the provincial governments meet in August. That is important to consider because the success of the proposed act will be based upon the co-operation achieved between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer, with regard to the loan board which it is proposed to establish, were very interesting. He said there were three types of capital available to municipalities, namely tax capital, commercial capital and social capital, and he implied that social capital was the same thing as social credit. As I am from Alberta I was glad at least to find out what social credit was; apparently it is social capital. "Social capital" is a nice phrase. I do not know who first coined it


Robert Norman Thompson: You will find out what it is tonight when the votes are counted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member talks about votes being counted. That is fine. I can remember some votes being counted in the constituency of Red Deer not so long ago. The hon. member must have found out a lot of things that particular night too.
On this point it is interesting to bring to the attention of the committee, with regard to social capital and municipal loans, that on February 28, 1961 a similar debate took place in the Alberta legislature. That legislature was at the time debating the question of whether or not they should ask the federal
17, 1963	1261
Municipal Development and Loan Board government to set up a municipal loan fund. Mr. Manning, the premier of the province, entered the debate for the first time in the session and explained that a distinction should be drawn between social capital and those funds belonging to private individuals or corporations. I would like his government to produce a Hansard so that, rather than reading a report on the debate, I would be able to follow him verbatim and perhaps get a better idea of just what is meant by social capital as applied to municipalities.
Premier Manning went on to say that this social capital should be made available to municipalities to borrow at the going rate of interest. This is the premier of the Social Credit government in Alberta talking. He said they must expect to pay the going rate of interest. That is an interesting remark coming from a party which believes in no interest rates, or interest rates which are not greater than the cost of administering the loan. He suggests that a bank be set up under the Bank of Canada, something similar to that which the hon. member for Red Deer suggested in the debate on June 14. He also admitted, and I think this is very interesting, that if the money is made available through the Bank of Canada-I suppose he did not like to use the phrase "print it", but I suppose this is what he implied-that the plan would produce inflationary pressures. This is also quite an admission coming from the Social Credit group which over the years has said that the money supply has nothing to do with inflation. It is quite an admission coming from the premier of that province, who admitted that such a plan would produce inflationary pressures. He suggested that the Bank of Canada could control this by increasing the percentage of cash chartered banks must have on deposit in proportion to the amount on loan. This was his explanation of how inflation could be controlled, by making more money available from social capital and limiting the amount of money available through commercial channels such as the chartered banks. This would be the result of this action, to increase the percentage of cash the chartered banks must have on deposit in proportion to the amount on loan. This would be the security held against the amount loaned. This again, is a surprising thing coming from a party which advocates, and advocated on June 14, that this was one type of capital which should be expanded in order to promote free enterprise. How can you promote free enterprise by limiting commercial capital? Is that promoting free enterprise? I hardly think so. On one hand they want to increase social capital
1262	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and, Loan Board and on the other they want to limit commercial capital and promote free enterprise. This is an impossibility.


Mr. Patterson:: I am afraid you are all tangled up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not as tangled up as the hon. member would like me to be and as his party tangled up the voters when they led them through a tangled mess of haze for a great many years. Now they are getting straightened out to some extent with regard to elections.


Robert Norman Thompson: Count the votes tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to do just that and I would like the hon. member for Red Deer to count the votes in the riding of Red Deer tonight. But I realize, Mr. Chairman, that these hecklers are drawing me away from the subject under discussion and I want to get back to it. I think one of the important things we must bear in mind is that loans should be made for no longer than the useful life of the project. If the credit is extended beyond the useful life of the project it is a very inefficient type of loan. It is an inefficient type of loan because it will cost the municipality far more money than the interest rate; it will cost three or four times the amount of the interest rate. The hon. member for Red Deer referred to several projects which were constructed for 50 years -and we have read about these-where the loan has recently been paid off, long after the project had gone. In many cases they had been torn up years ago. I think this must be guarded against in making freer capital available to municipalities instead of, to quote the hon. member for Red Deer again, rubbing liniment on an ache or pain, and continuing the life of the ache or pain. Such a remedy might eventually do more harm than good. Applied in another way, in the field of finance, it might eventually cripple the whole provincial tax structure.
This is one of the great dangers with which the municipalities of Alberta are faced today. There is a danger that their tax structure will be crippled because of the high municipal debts in the province. In no province in Canada is municipal debt higher than it is in Alberta; there is no province where land taxes are as high as they are in Alberta. This is because money has been made available to the municipalities through loans, but not enough has been made available by means of grants. The former federal government made grants of money to the provinces in larger amounts, by way of direct grants, than ever before. Something like $3.6 billion was made available to the provinces across


Canada during the last five years so that they might better meet their requirements.
We in this house all realize that the municipalities have, as their main sources of revenue, the taxes imposed on property and on land. It is true that some provincial governments make grants available to the municipalities out of revenue from sales taxes, gasoline taxes and so on. But by far the greatest amount of their revenue comes from land taxes. As a farmer, and as one who is, possibly, closer to the land than some others in this house, I realize the danger which the municipalities across Canada are facing when they must impose high rates of taxation in order to meet the cost of their municipal borrowing. This is why great care must be taken in applying for these loans. It is well and good for the government to say it intends to pour out money in order to do away with unemployment.


Mr. Lloyd:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that the mayors federation of Canada, through its executive, presented a request for consideration by the royal commission on banking and finance that a municipal loan fund should be established? This request was representative of all the mayors and municipalities of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was aware of that, and lest the hon. member be mistaken with regard to my remarks, let me say that I am in favour of a municipal loan fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nothing pleases a speaker more than to know people are listening to him, and I am glad members opposite have been paying attention to what I have been saying. It does my heart good. I may go on for 20 minutes longer.
I am aware that the mayors and municipalities at their meeting in Toronto recently wanted a municipal fund set up from which they could borrow money. But I wish to give this warning and say that such a fund may not be the answer to their desires. If not properly used, it may lead them further into debt. And who would have to pay this debt? The land owners throughout Canada would have to do so, whether they own property in a city or a farm in the province of Alberta. It would come from taxes on land, because this is where the municipalities acquire the greatest part of their revenue.
Lest there be any doubt about it, let me say that I am in favour of the bill, with certain reservations as to how the loans should be made. I am against the limitations placed on the use of this fund because they seem to

me to be applied in such a way as to encourage capital projects which will not provide tor continuous employment. Jobs will be produced, it is true, while the capital projects are being built, but the money invested will not continue to produce jobs in the years ahead. If loans were made available in respect of water development, for example, there would be a continuous multiciplicity of jobs becoming available each year as a result of the initial capital expenditure. I know of many municipalities in my constituency which are constantly handicapped by the lack of ample water supplies and I wonder why loans in connection with water development projects could not be made available under this scheme.
Without doubt, loans to municipalities would help in getting them over the hump. But loans should be made in respect of projects capable of creating jobs as a result of which more money would flow into the coffers of the municipality concerned. I do not want to see this $400 millions lent out and spent on projects for capital works which would, in the end, increase government employment, for example. We all realize at one time or another that, to an extent, we are serving the people; we are working for the people. But the people are paying the cost of this administration, so we do not want the cost of administration of government to increase, whether municipally, federally, or provincially. That is why I say this fund must be spent in such a way that eventually more money will go back to municipal coffers.
I have tried to deal with some of the reservations I feel with regard to this loan project. I should like to deal with one more which particularly affects the smaller municipalities across Canada. This is the fear of being left completely out of participation in this $400 millions which is to be made available. They are in fear that the Bay street interests of the present government may control and funnel this $400 millions into the larger cities throughout the country and that the smaller rural municipalities will have none of it made available to them for the betterment of life in their areas. I hope the bill when drafted contains a provision similar to that which was written into the act to assist municipalities which was drawn up in 1938. I am told this measure was in effect only until 1939 when it got too hot for the government of that day to handle. I should like to see the present measure enjoy a longer life, longer even than three years, and make money available on a per capita basis to municipalities across Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not intend at this time to speak at length or in detail on the provisions
17, 1963	1263
Municipal Development and Loan Board of the municipal loan and development bill. The resolution placed on the order paper on May 20 stated the main purpose of the statute and indicated some of its principal features.
In my earlier remarks to the committee I affirmed the intention of the loan program to stimulate the economy and provide new jobs while at the same time assisting municipalities to construct basic capital facilities. In the debate on the resolution so far questions have arisen with respect to the detailed operation of the program. For the most part, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that further discussion on matters of this kind can be carried on more usefully perhaps after hon. members have had the chance to read the bill itself. I think it is rather difficult for hon. members to discuss the bill when they have not seen it, although I must say they have been doing very well under this handicap. In many instances answers to the questions which have been raised will be found in the provisions of the bill when it comes before the committee. However, in the course of the debate a few points of a more general nature arose on which I should like to comment now.
Let me first refer to the place of the proposed municipal loans programs in the over-all policies of economic expansion and new employment being developed by this government. The municipal loan program constitutes action designed to produce new jobs in the intermediate term. Among other measures announced by my colleague last week, were some designed for short term effects while others are intended to have their major impact over a longer period of years. All are integral parts of a national program of action. Each has its essential place in a plan of national development. The municipal loans in particular will have significant effects this winter-that is, of course, if the legislation is passed in time-and major effects in the two years following. They thus play an important role in the intermediate term.
The authorized amount of the program is $400 million-or that is what is being asked for. If fully utilized it will assist in the construction of some $600 million worth of additional municipal projects. Some hon. members have suggested that this amount seems small in view of the capital needs of the municipalities. The government does not hold this view. These are large sums, Mr. Chairman, and when we take into account the time of nearly three years, together with the range of eligible projects and the fact that the loans are to be applied to additional projects, then the $600 million of assisted projects constitutes a very substantial effort on the part of the municipalities.
1264	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board
In this respect I would ask hon. members to consider for the moment the demand for sewage treatment loans under the National Housing Act. This program has been in effect now for two and a half years. It has an authorized limit of $200 million. What has been the experience under that program? As of June 7, 1963 some 442 loans were made aggregating $100,285,000. Thus almost $100 million of loans remain available after two and a half years of operation. Against this amount there are now outstanding 14 applications aggregating approximately $4 million. The rate of utilization of this program may give some hon. members assurances as to the adequacy of the proposed new program, and I respectfully ask hon members to reserve judgment as to its scope until they have seen the bill. They can then relate it to the other programs being developed under the National Housing Act. For some of these older programs the government intends to propose amendments and improvements.
I also want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that loans will be available to all municipalities, large and small. Indeed, it is to be expected that the smaller municipalities will participate fully in the new program. The eligible projects are such that they will find ample opportunity to participate. Once again, if I may say so, this has been the experience under the sewage loan program, where, for example, more than one fifth of the loans were made to small communities in Saskatchewan. Loans to municipalities of all sizes were made throughout the country and there is every reason to expect that a similar pattern will emerge under the proposed municipal loans plan.
The other night, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether the proposed program of municipal loans had been placed before the provinces before being presented to the house. This has not been done. It is the government's view that it is the right of parliament to have first opportunity of discussing this plan on the resolution stage, and then when parliament has expressed its views it will be appropriate to discuss the plan with the provincial authorities. As I have indicated, the proposed loan plan has been developed with full regard for the constitutional rights of the provinces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Does he mean that there will be a meeting between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities between the resolution stage and presenting this bill to the committee or to parliament?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman, and if the hon. member will allow me to finish what I


was about to come to, I think it will be quite clear to him. As I have indicated, the proposed loan plan has been developed with full regard for the constitutional rights of the provinces. When hon. members see the proposed legislation I am sure they will appreciate that the program cannot proceed and that loans cannot be made until appropriate procedures have been discussed and worked out with the provinces. Loan applications must not only be approved by the provinces; they must also be transmitted by the provinces to the proposed loan board. The cooperation of the provinces will thus be required and they will be consulted. The government is confident, Mr. Chairman, that the same co-operation which has existed under past and similar programs will continue under the proposed plan. I repeat, however, that the government's position in this matter is that parliament's views should first be ascertained. Approval of the plans should first be sought in the house and this is the course we propose to follow.
Let me point out that the course proposed is not an unusual one. Indeed, there are many precedents. Several of these relate to the procedures followed by the previous government. Let me cite the sewage loan program under part VI B of the National Housing Act initiated by the previous government in 1960 without, to the best of my knowledge, any prior consultation with the provinces of the kind suggested the other evening by the Leader of the Opposition. This program broke new ground in the field of assistance to municipalities by way of loans, but as I say I believe there was no prior consultation. A similar course was followed, so far as I am aware, in the case of the winter works incentive program. Here was a program of grants to municipalities decided upon by the government of the day without prior consultation with the provinces. The same was true, I understand, with the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act passed by this parliament under the former government, but before consultations took place with the provinces who were vitally affected.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the course we propose to follow is clearly not a departure from established practice. I noted with interest the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition which appear on page 892 of Hansard, where he stated that his reading suggests to him that:
-public works have been ineffective as a means of meeting unemployment on any economical basis or standard, the cost is too great, and they do not provide jobs.
This is not the economic philosophy of this government and I doubt that it will appeal to members of the committee. We on this

side of the house are confident that the proposed plan will produce many thousands of new jobs and we have every confidence that it will operate with the co-operation of the provinces and within the framework of the constitution. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I ask the co-operation of members of the committee in expediting passage of the proposed legislation.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance in his brief outline has cleared up some of the points I had in mind in rising to speak, so as a result my speech will be much shorter. However, he still has not established in my mind that this plan is exactly what the municipalities desire and expect from the government, I am not an expert in municipal finance or in administration, but one does not have to be an expert in these matters to see that the program oulined in the resolution before us does not meet the present requirements of the municipalities and certainly does not provide for their future plans.
Like other speakers I am in agreement with the principle of a municipal loan fund, but the proposed loan arrangement does not come near fulfilling the great Liberal promises in the last election campaign. There are very few signs of the much-publicized, bold, imaginative program to end unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition emphasized the weaknesses and shortcomings of this municipal loan plan and other speakers have also dealt with particular points. As I said, the Minister of Finance has dealt with some of these points so that I do not need to repeat them now, but they will certainly be brought up again when the bill is considered in detail.
The resolution states that this is a measure to promote increased employment in Canada. We all agree with this objective, although we do not think that this plan will meet that objective. The objective of meeting the problem of unemployment is an objective with regard to which the former government had made and was continuing to make remarkable progress when its program of national development was obstructed by the opposition and the government was voted out of office.
I am sure we all agree that a municipal loan fund is necessary. Such a fund has been requested by the municipalities, as has been brought out by other speakers. But lending $400 million over the next three years to municipalities cannot be regarded as the full answer to their needs. A loan fund of $400 million seems like a tremendous sum and it is a tremendous amount especially when, as our leader pointed out, there is no indication just where or how the government intends to obtain this money.
17, 1963	1265
Municipal Development and Loan Board
How far will $400 million go in fulfilling the government's promise of full employment especially when, as other speakers have pointed out, the government gives with one hand and takes away with the other hand? In connection with the matter of giving and at the same time taking back I am thinking of the imposition by the budget of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I am not sure how many hundreds of millions of dollars the Minister of Finance expects to receive from the 11 per cent tax on building materials but I imagine it will take a large slice out of the $400 million set aside for municipal programs.
What I am attempting to point out is that the larger part of any loan to a municipality under this program will have to be spent on building materials, leaving only a smaller portion of the loan for employment payrolls. The production of the building materials will, of course, provide jobs but I am thinking of smaller centres where building materials are not produced locally. In these smaller centres the increased building costs already imposed by the new government which has been in office for less than 60 days will do little to encourage or help building by municipalities.
There is another aspect of the proposed loan fund which will be of common concern to smaller centres. It has been made clear by the government that the fund will not be made available for the construction of hospitals, schools, university buildings or sewage systems. In the smaller centres the exclusion of these items will leave very little in the way of capital works that can be undertaken. As has been pointed out by other speakers, especially by the hon. member for Acadia, this means that the larger centres will receive nearly all the benefit from the proposed loans. This was indicated by the headlines in a Toronto paper following the announcement of this program. There were several stories about major projects in Toronto that would likely be eligible for loans from the $400 million fund. The cost of these proposed projects would take almost one third of the entire loan fund.
I am not blaming Toronto for trying to get all it can. We all know the city's reputation and the name it has been given because of its acquisitive habits. What I am trying to point out to the government, as others have pointed out, is that there must be some limit on what one city or one area can receive. I hope this will be made clear in the bill when it comes before us for consideration. I know the Minister of Finance touched on the subject but I think it should be brought out in more detail and, as the hon. member for Acadia said, there should be a definite limit
1266	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board on the amount for any one centre. I have no idea what plans the municipalities in my area have but I am sure they will want their share and I am here to see that they get their share, and that all the money does not go to the large centres.
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out the difficulties likely to arise in securing dominion-provincial agreement with regard to the administration of the loan fund. These difficulties need not be repeated now. Perhaps I could ask the government one question with regard to the provinces. I know that some of the provinces have municipal loan arrangements of their own, but does this particular loan program envisage any contribution to the municipalities from the provincial governments? I am thinking of the winter works program of the former government under which Ottawa paid 50 per cent of the labour costs and the provincial governments paid 25 per cent. Under the former government there was a scheme of technical and vocational training, and Ottawa paid 75 per cent of the building cost and the province 25 per cent. I could cite another example from my own province of Saskatchewan. Ottawa is paying 75 per cent of the cost of constructing the south Saskatchewan dam and the provincial government is paying 25 per cent. Will there be provisions under which the provincial governments will participate in these municipal loans?
One reason for asking this question, Mr. Chairman, is the surplus of nearly $10 million reported by the Saskatchewan government for the last fiscal year. While the municipalities were cutting their works programs in an attempt to balance their budgets, the Saskatchewan government built up a surplus of nearly $10 million. I do not believe the government at Regina should take such pride in a budget surplus when this $10 million could have been used to help the municipalities.
This is not the whole story, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this surplus. The Saskatchewan government received from Ottawa, among other items, and I am not going to mention them all, over $30 million under certain tax sharing agreements, subsidies and so on. Ottawa also paid the Saskatchewan government about $18,300,000 under hospital insurance during the last fiscal year. All provincial governments received federal financial contributions on a similar scale. This was made clear by the official opposition financial critic, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, in his brief reply to the budget last Thursday. He gave figures to show that under the former government the provinces received $3,525 million more than
[Mr. Pascoe.l

would have been paid under the Liberal government's schedule. If these payments had not been made there would have been a federal surplus in the last five years.
These remarks are by way of commenting on provincial financial responsibility. As I said earlier, they are made to emphasize my question concerning possible provincial participation in this municipal loan plan. It may be of some interest to refer to some of the comments made by the mayor of a Saskatchewan city. These comments were made before the announcement of the $10 million surplus by the Saskatchewan government. At that time he said that the Saskatchewan municipalities were in urgent need of some financial assistance from the provincial government to ease the increasing burden of municipal taxation. He hoped that the Saskatchewan government would share the increased revenue from tax rentals from Ottawa. As I say, these remarks were made before the announcement of the $10 million surplus. At that time, he said the Saskatchewan provincial government might be able to claim a reduced provincial debt, but that the debt reduction was due to a shift in the tax load from the province to the muncipal government.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am making these comments in order to ascertain if there is some way by which the provincial governments can be brought into this plan. The Minister of Finance referred to the sewage projects which were introduced by the former government and which were a great success. He gave the figures in respect of this program. I hope he meant it, and I imagine he did, when he said that this loan program would fit in with the sewage program and would also fit in with the winter works program. Hon. members have pointed out that $900 million was paid under that winter works program, and I mention it in contrast to the $400 million available under this program.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, these comments have been cut short because the Minister of Finance explained some of the points I had in mind. However, these remarks result from inquiries I have received following the introduction of this resolution. I trust that these further questions will be cleared up by the Minister of Finance either now or when the bill is before us.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-76, to promote increased employment in Canada by financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate municipal capital works programs.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT
Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the number of members of the Atlantic development board from five to eleven; to establish as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund an Atlantic development fund to which shall be credited the sum of one hundred million dollars to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available; and to provide that the said act shall expire on the 24th day of January, 1969; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Judging from the applause, Mr. Chairman, with which my entry was greeted, I take it that my little stratagem worked and that hon. members opposite thought when I went out that I had left the building and the government would be caught napping.


An hon. Member:: We knew what you were doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say, sir, that if my absence from the house upon occasion will stimulate the same kind of progress I will try to stay away as much as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know of course with what eagerness certain hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, have been awaiting the introduction of this resolution. In fact some of them have spoken in anticipation of what was going to be said. I think therefore it would be desirable if I read the resolution itself and comment very briefly. I can assure the committee it will be very briefly because I hope we might get first reading of the bill by ten o'clock, in which case we could go right on and pass the bill tomorrow, and that would speed up the work of the board, which I know many hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as those on this side of the house, would like.


Mr. Fairweafher:: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.
Atlantic Development Board Act


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is it not a fact the board is now constituted and set up, and cannot its work proceed immediately?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is just anticipating a point I was going to make in my speech, and I will make it at the point I intended to make it, and not seek to anticipate myself. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act to increase the number of members of the Atlantic development board from five to eleven; to establish as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund an Atlantic development fund to which shall be credited the sum of one hundred million dollars to be used for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing programs or projects that would contribute to the growth and development of the economy of the Atlantic region and for which satisfactory financing arrangements are not otherwise available;-
I stress those words "which are not otherwise available" because it is not intended that the Atlantic development board, in the expenditure of the fund, will be doing things that would be done by any other agency of the government. It is not to substitute itself for the other programs of the government; it is to supplement them, and I think that point should be emphasized on every possible occasion.
-and to provide that the said act shall expire on the 24th day of January, 1969; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the said act.
The hon. member for Royal asked whether the board was now functioning. Of course it is quite true the board is functioning. The board has been functioning, or at least has been in existence since January 24, and I cannot forbear-I do this in no partisan spirit, sir-I cannot forbear to remark that the legislation was passed by the previous parliament before Christmas, and it was one of the 17 items of legislation that the previous government was able to get passed in the first 60 days of that parliament.


An hon. Member:: How many have you got now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were 17 government measures passed in the first 60 days of that parliament, and that was when the opposition was supposed to be obstructing the government. I just draw attention to that fact, that there were 17 measures passed, and one of them was this measure which hon. gentlemen opposite have claimed was a very important one, and which I agree was a very important one. I think that parenthetical observation of mine is just a demonstration of how ridiculous are many of these observations that have been made from time to time about obstruction in the last parliament. Those 17 measures would

Atlantic Development Board Act not have been passed in those 60 days without co-operation of the opposition, which was forthcoming.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants this resolution to be passed before ten o'clock I think the should come down to the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, so long as the hon. member for Lapointe will not ask me a hundred questions about it, I will try to get on with the subject very rapidly.
When the board was set up on January 24, which was over a month after the act passed, it was to set to work immediately. There has been a great deal of questioning in a good many minds as to what the relationship of the board, as it now exists, would be to the board as it is proposed to be enlarged and, in our opinion, strengthened. I think perhaps the best and simplest way I can explain that is to read a letter which I handed, after showing it to him, to the chairman of the board on May 23, 1963.
I told the chairman at the time I gave this letter to him that I intended to read it in parliament because I thought it would provide a very succinct explanation of the idea of the present administration as to how the existing board should function in the meantime, and how it would dovetail with the new arrangements that we were proposing to parliament, if those arrangements were accepted by parliament.
I was very anxious, as hon. members will see when I read the letter, to make sure any of the work the board had already embarked upon would not be interrupted pending the passage of the amending legislation. The letter reads:
May 23, 1963.
Brigadier Michael Wardell,
Chairman,
Atlantic Development Board,
Ottawa.
Dear Brigadier Wardell:
About a week ago, I told you I would advise you of the proposed amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act as soon as my colleagues and I had reached a decision as to the form in which we proposed to recommend them to parliament.
This stage has now been reached and the appropriate resolution has already been placed on the order paper of the House of Commons.
There are two proposed amendments of a substantial character. One of these would establish an Atlantic development fund of one hundred million dollars. The board will have the responsibility of recommending the expenditure of this fund and of supervising such expenditures, but the final approval of each capital project rests with the government. The effective use of the fund will clearly require a close harmony of view between the government and the board and especially the chairman.

The other important amendment affects the membership of the board and the tenure of the members. There would be a normal tenure of three years with a provision for one renewal for a second term and with provision for staggering the initial appointments.-
Something that is quite normal in legislation of this kind.
-The four existing members of the board, apart from the chairman, would be continued in their membership by the amendment itself for one year and the present chairman would be continued for a period of two years as a member of the board. The chairman would, on the coming into force of the amending legislation, be appointed during pleasure from among the members of the board.
I would like particularly to stress the last paragraph:
Until the new legislation comes into effect it would be the hope of the government that the present board would continue to pursue any activities already undertaken and to initiate any new activities consistent with the spirit of the legislation exactly as they would have done had there been no change of government.
I may say, sir, that in proposing these amendments the government takes the view, which the previous government took in introducing the original legislation, that the board's main function is to stimulate the development of the Atlantic provinces through all kinds of existing agencies, federal, provincial, municipal, private and corporate in the Atlantic area. We believe that this is the more important of its two functions, but we indicated when we were in opposition, and we take the view now that we are in office, that the board should have at its disposal a fund which can be used to supplement its other activities.
The fund is not intended to be the sole means-even the sole means in a federal sense-of promoting development in the Atlantic provinces. I go on and say it is not intended to be the main means because it is my view that the activities of the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture, the department of mines and, above all, of the new department of industry, will contribute mightily to that development.
What the Atlantic development board will do with its fund is to fill in the gaps, 1 hope; that is, do those things that none of these agencies has the specific function of doing and at the same time promote the development and emphasize the development which each of these agencies can make to the goal which I am sure all parties in the house share. I refer to the goal of bringing the level of income, the level of employment, the level of activity and the standard of living in the Atlantic provinces as rapidly as we can and as near as we can to the level in other

parts of the country. That is the objective, and I do not believe there is any quarrel with that objective-I am sure there is not -in any quarter of the house. I should be very surprised if there is.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when we were in opposition we were critical of what we thought were some deficiencies in the legislation brought forward by the previous government. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton will recall that on the day the membership of the board was announced in this house by him I rose at once and welcomed the prompt appointment of the board at that time, in January. I said we hoped they would get to work quickly and we wanted to do everything we could to see that their work was fruitful and effective. I hope that in introducing amendments which we believe will strengthen the board and will give the board an opportunity to take a direct initiative to do certain things that no other agency of the federal government is equipped to do as a part of its normal operations, we will have the same spirit of co-operation from the other side of the house that we tried to manifest once the legislation had been adopted and brought into force in January of this year.
There are a great many more things that I would like to say on the bill itself. However, I would prefer, if it were possible, to have the resolution adopted and to have hon. members see the provisions of the bill itself, so we may carry on the debate in the full knowledge of what it is the government is proposing to the house. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend this evening to make any more extended observations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. Will any of the members of the board be full time; and if so, how many?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not contemplated that there will be any full time members of the board. The present board has appointed a full time director and one or two other officers, and they have selected one or two consultants. But it is contemplated that the board will as far as possible employ existing agencies of government to carry on the work, even the work of spending the money in the fund, in order to avoid needless expenditure in building up another so-called department of government, or agency of government. It is felt the board should be more fully representative, and that is why we are adding to the membership. Perhaps I should have said this earlier. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, if I remember rightly, and certainly some of his friends in the house in the last parliament suggested that the
17, 1963	1269
Atlantic Development Board Act board should be more representative of the various industries and economic interests in the Atlantic provinces. We share that view fully. We do not think that a board of five members can be adequately representative of all those interests. It is in order to provide for a reasonable representation of the main economic interests that we are suggesting this increase in membership.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does this part time employment apply equally to the chairman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with some remarks I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he would comment on the fact that the resolution contains a declaration of intent, if you like, that the board shall cease to exist on January 24, 1969.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should really have mentioned that point in my explanation, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members will recall, I am sure, that the first forecast of this particular kind of measure was made in the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in 1957, a royal commission of which the chairman was my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance. It was recommended- and I believe I have the report among my documents here and perhaps at a later stage when I speak on the bill I will put the actual recommendation on the record-that a massive effort of capital investment be made with a view, not simply to adding a little each year to the capital structure but really to add rapidly to the capital structure in the Atlantic provinces with a view to raising the level of income. This was not with the idea of having a new, permanent agency of government, but really to take a big leap forward quickly. It is that concept that we are seeking to embody in this amendment. It is for that reason it was thought that a six year period would be an appropriate one.
I think I might just add this about it. It does seem to me that if there is a short period there will be an added incentive to do as much as possible in that period. If we find that really effective results are being obtained and that this technique has not completed the work at the end of six years, I feel quite sure that whatever government may be in office in this country at that time -and none of us can tell for sure what that government will be-they will not want to stop that advance. On the other hand, if this device does not work, there is no use having another piece of governmental machinery lying around. It is for that reason that after very careful consideration this six year period was picked.

Atlantic Development Board Act


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one other question related to this very interesting observation by the Secretary of State. Is $100 million in his view the massive assistance that is contemplated for the period? Is that the entire amount until January 24, 1969?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is not, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had made that point clear, but I think the hon. gentleman is quite right in suggesting that I should emphasize it. I think I used the phrase that this was to be a gap filler. I have mentioned various departments, and I probably did not mention all that I should have, because there are other projects and my hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, through the national parks and in other ways will, I hope, be contributing very materially to that capital investment in the Atlantic provinces, and it will not come out of this $100 million. Indeed, I have a lot of schemes for spending his money myself. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries who has just returned from Newfoundland, where he has been to see the main fishing province of Canada, also has plans to contribute to the capital development of the Atlantic area.
I am hoping that as soon as the site of the world's fair is settled, my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works will have an opportunity to make a tour of the coast of Newfoundland with me, especially the northeast coast, so that I can show him all the marine improvements which are necessary in order to accomplish something. I also have some plans for my hon. friend the Minister of Transport, but perhaps I have gone far enough to indicate to the hon. member for Royal that the $100 million is, in my view, a gap filler.


Robert Muir: I enjoyed the remarks of the minister but he has not fully clarified the situation in my mind. He mentions the sum of $100 million. Is this to be for one year, for two years, for a longer period, or for every year? All these other departments carry on with their work and we are looking forward to great decisions by them. Parks have been mentioned. Is the hon. gentleman including any of these works which would be carried on by the different departments as part of their duties? Surely we are to have $100 million over and above such sums. Will it be for the next six months, the next year, or two years, or six years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had thought that would be clear, but I will be glad to repeat what I said. This $100 million, which is a capital fund and therefore is, of course, not for six
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
months, is over and above the normal appropriation and it is intended to do things which in their normal course of operation the departments of the federal government would not be doing.


Robert Muir: Does the minister feel that this $100 million will give us this great leap forward of which he spoke? When will this leap forward begin, and how long will it carry on? Will it be over at the end of six years, say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the short answer is that $100 million is $100 million more than nothing. But to answer the question a little more fully, this $100 million is not intended in any way to be substituted for any other program. It is to be an addition to what would otherwise be done.


Mr. Coates:: I wish to ask the minister one question. I was entranced by his kindly approach to the subject. He suggested in the last parliament that the Minister of National Revenue of that day was seducing the house in bringing forward a bill. I want to say the hon. gentleman is certainly proving to be a tremendous seducer himself. The minister has explained about the work of the different departments over and above the $100 million. What I should like to know is whether all these different departments are themselves going to inject a large extra amount of revenue into the Atlantic area as well. If not, all we end up with is $100 million, plus what we are getting today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the present government has given a good indication of what it intends to do in other ways. The hon. member was in the house the other day when we voted a slice of the new vote for the trans-Canada highway. The present government has already indicated that in the four Atlantic provinces it intends to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway. I think that is good evidence of the attitude of the present government toward capital development in the Atlantic provinces. I migh say that 90 per cent of this expenditure will in itself be a sizeable sum even in comparison with the $100 million for the Atlantic development fund. As the hon. member for Cumberland knows, as the hon. member for Pictou knows, and as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough certainly knows, in their constituencies the trans-Canada highway could stand a great deal of improvement, and the sooner the better.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. There will be a number of opportunities for hon. members to ask questions but they will remember that a few moments ago I recognized the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I do so again.


Hugh John Flemming: I had
wanted to ask another question, myself. Do I understand from the Secretary of State that the government would be willing to delete that portion of the resolution having to do with the expiration of the board at the end of a certain period, that is, on January 24, 1969? Do I understand that the government would consider deleting that feature, if it seemed to be the feeling among hon. members that it should be done?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman very well knows, we are at the resolution stage. The bill has not been introduced, and even after bills have been introduced governments have sometimes been known to make changes in them. I am not sure whether or not the hon. gentleman made one or two in the original bill.
If arguments were put forward in debate which I thought merited serious consideration, I would certainly be glad to bring them to the attention of my colleagues and I would not close the door on any reasonable suggestion for amendments, no matter from whatever quarter of the house it came.


Hugh John Flemming: I take it, then, that even if it came from me it might be acceptable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows that when we are not facing each other across the floor of the house there is no one whose suggestions I find more seductive.


An hon. Member:: Better call it ten o'clock.


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would consider it appropriate to call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
17, 1963	1271
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the leader of the house what changes he proposes in the program for Tuesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not propose any real changes from what was suggested on Friday. I indicated that the resolution respecting the Atlantic development board would be the second item of business for today, and we have got on to it, and I am grateful to hon. members for having let us make a start on this measure. We shall continue with it tomorrow and, I hope, get first reading of the bill, because I think it would be helpful to have the bill for study between now and the time when it could be taken up again after the budget debate.
I indicated on Friday that there would be two possibilities after that. One was the department of industry bill and the other the resolution preceding the measure respecting the Department of Agriculture. I think it will probably be more satisfactory to take the second reading of the department of industry bill, because we would probably want to start a fresh day on the Department of Agriculture measure, if we could. The department of industry has already been debated a great deal. However, should we get second reading and the committee stage of the department of industry through, then we would, perforce, start on the resolution respecting the Department of Agriculture. I hold out that bait to hon. gentlemen opposite. On Wednesday we shall begin the budget debate and carry on until it is completed.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 18, 1963