1963-11-13

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the opening of the session the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made a statement, as a question of privilege, concerning a press story in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 5, referring to the Dixon-Speas report. I did not hear the earlier part of the hon. gentleman's statement, as I came into the house when his remarks were nearing conclusion.
In the course of his statement he quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press of November 5, part of which quotation was as follows:
Mrs. Konantz had seen the Dixon-Speas report and could understand why it could not be made public. She said it contained information which could not be given to C.P.A., T.C.A.'s main competitor.
Later in the day at the question period questions were asked on the same general subject matter by the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and in the course of these questions and answers I said I did not show the report to the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
The facts are that the hon. member for Winnipeg South came to my office, and among other subjects pressed me to do all I could to make sure that the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base did not move from Winnipeg, and asked me why I did not table the Dixon-Speas report. The Dixon-Speas report was on a table behind my desk where I had been working on it.


Mr. Starr:: Kind of handy there.


George James McIlraith: I explained to her why it could not be released. I pointed to it and indicated that four of the volumes contained almost exclusively material which could not be tabled because of its confidential nature, in that it gave detailed technical information that must remain confidential to the air line and that would be most useful to competitors.
The report was not removed from its place, nor was it opened or examined by Mrs. Konantz.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege that was raised yesterday, and to which the Minister of Transport has now spoken, may I say there seems to be some question as to what the hon. member for Winnipeg South meant when she said, as reported, that she saw the report.
We note with interest the explanation given by the Minister of Transport. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg South will be returning from the United Nations to the House of Commons today or tomorrow, and we are prepared to wait until we hear from her before we consider whether any further steps should be taken.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	In the recent announcements by the Minister of Public Works that arrangements are completed for the construction plans for the access to the World fair site was the reference to (a) the complex consisting of the ice boom; the Point St. Charles-St. Helen's island bridge, the St. Helen's island-lie Notre Dame bridges and the lie Notre Dame to Jacques Cartier bridge ramps; or to (b) the provincially sponsored long span, high level bridge from Point St. Charles to St. Helen's island, the connecting bridges from St. Helen's island to lie Notre Dame, and the tunnel under the seaway from lie Notre Dame to St. Lambert?
2.	If it was to (b) what contribution by the federal government is planned on the latter plans?
3.	Has there been a finality in plans for access to the fair site and, if not, what possibilities are still under investigation or unapproved?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. The minister elaborated in a general manner various projects for the construction of the approaches which will be necessary to provide access to the site of the world exhibition.
2.	The Canadian World Exhibition Corporation has suggested the construction of a bridge to connect St. Helen's island to Point Saint Charles and from St. Helen's island to Notre Dame island and the tunnel under the St. Lawrence seaway connecting Notre Dame island to the south shore: cost sharing will be established after the plans and specifications have been completed.

Questions
3.	The plans regarding the approaches to the site of the world exhibition have not yet been definitely laid down but they soon will be as they constitute the priority works of the exhibition.


* GRAIN BOATS AWAITING LOADING
Mr. Rapp: 1.	How many grain boats were waiting to be loaded with Canadian wheat and flour during the longshoremen's strike in Montreal harbour?
2.	Of what registry were these boats, and for whom were they supposed to take on grain and flour?
3.	What, is the estimated loss of shipping, by bushels, of wheat and flour during the recent strike by the I.L.A. in the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec?


Mr. Cantin:: The national harbours board advise as follows:
1.	Sixteen.
2.	(a) Registry of vessels-6 Russian, 1 Norwegian, 1 Israeli, 2 Greek, 2 British, 1 Swedish, 1 Liberian, and 2 German; (b) This information is not of record with the board.
3.	This information is not of record with the board.


COST OF TELEVISION SERVICE, FLIN FLON AND THE PAS, MAN.
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What is the total capital expenditure by the C.B.C. in relation to T.V. service for Flin Flon, Manitoba, and The Pas, Manitoba?
2.	What is the annual operational cost of this service?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Total capital expenditures to September 30, 1963 for: (i) Flin Flon, Manitoba, $251,431; <ii) The Pas, Manitoba, $116,831.
2.	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 recording. The cost of television recording for a non-connected station 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 recording and to provide maintenance service for both stations. Aside from the salaries of these four employees, operating costs are confined to those for building and technical maintenance, line costs, tube replacements, light, power, etc.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, CHARLEVOIX CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Belanger: 1. How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Charlevoix?

2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Three-(a) St-Tite-des-Caps R.R. No. 2; (b) Cap-aux-Oies and Canadian National Railway Station; (c) St-Hilarion R.R. No. 1.
2.	(a) St-Tite-des-Caps R.R. No. 2; Henri Jean, St-Tite-des-Caps, $1,480.95; Armand Morency, St-Tite-des-Caps, $1,800; Edmond Cunningham, St-Tite-des-Caps, $2,000.
(b)	Cap-aux-Oies and Canadian National Railway Station; Rolland Fortin, Cap-aux-Oies, $350; Raoul Perron, Cap-aux-Oies, $550.
(c)	St-Hilarion R.R. No. 1; Fernand Gagnon, St-Hilarion, $999; Paul Chouinard, St-Hilarion, $1,150; Frangois Audet, St-Hilarion, $1,175; Gaetan Audet, St-Hilarion, $1,190; Athanase Chouinard, St-Hilarion, $1,198; Normand Chouinard, St-Hilarion, $1,252; Arthur Tremblay, St-Hilarion, $1,350; Toussaint Tremblay, St-Hilarion, $1,495; Jacques Chouinard, St-Hilarion, $1,700; Lucien Tremblay, St-Hilarion, $1,800.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Henri Jean; (b) Rolland Fortin; (c) Fernand Gagnon.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, SHEFFORD CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Shefford?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: (d)	Granby-repainting of mail boxes: Emile Phaneuf; $174; Lajeunesse & Frere, $208.85; Roger Martin, $249.85; Bouthillette and Frere, $258.
(e)	Granby-repairing and repainting of mail boxes: Granby Welding Supplies Inc., $136.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Benoit Champagne; (b) Normand Menard; (c) Edeas Bisaillon; (d) Emile Phaneuf; (e) Contract not yet awarded.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Perron: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Beauce?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. None.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, ROBERVAL CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Roberval?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. Five: (a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service; (b) Roberval R.R. No. 2; (c) Didyme R.R. No. 1; (d) St-Felicien- repainting of mail boxes; (e) Dolbeau-repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service: Sylvio Giroux, Village de St-Prime, $24,500; Rosaire Goudreault, Albanel, $24,900;
Questions
Johnny Perron, Box 31, Mistassini, $25,600; Federal Delivery Inc. (Rosaire Blouin), 46 Moreau sud, Quebec, $27,106; Louis Rene Doucet, Normandin, $29,800; Almas Bouchard, Box 128, Normandin, $30,000; Pruneau & Pruneau Enr., Desbiens, $31,200; Raoul Bouchard, Box 134, Mistassini, $32,860; Louis Arthur Girard, Box 32, Notre-Dame d'Hebert-ville, $33,990; Bernard Ouellet, 87 Turgeon, Notre-Dame d'Hebertville, Alphonse Tremblay, 4 Potvin, Notre-Dame d'Hebertville, $34,964; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $35,368; Isidore Pelletier, Notre-Dame d'Hebertville, $36,945; Edmour Pilote, St-Felicien, $38,250; Rosaire Lamontagne, Roger Lamontagne, Box 961, Dolbeau, $38,980; Marcelin Meroz, 317 Blvd. Sacre-Coeur, St-Felicien, $40,605; Transport Frontenac Ltee (Antoine Chabot), 263 St-Paul, Quebec, $41,226.28; Edmour St-Pierre, Albanel, $60,000.
Tender received which did not meet departmental requirements: Henri Audet, St-Felicien, $25,136.
(b)	Roberval R.R. No. 2: Joseph Cinq-Mars, 18 Otis, Box 533, Roberval, $1,200; Richard Meunier, Roberval, $1,400; Adrien Lajoie, Roberval (late tender), $2,400.
(c)	Didyme R.R. No. 1: Romeo Desmeules, St-Thomas, $1,400; Gerard Guay, St-Thomas, $1,485; Jean Louis Darveau, St-Thomas, $1,490; Paul Gingras, St-Thomas, $1,500.
(d)	St-Felicien-repainting of mail boxes: Andre Boivin, $40; Jean H. Gagnon, $65.
(e)	Dolbeau-repainting of mail boxes: Vincent Moreau, $25.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Sylvio Giroux; (b) Joseph Cinq-Mars; (c) Romeo Desmeules; (d) Andre Boivin; (e) Vincent Moreau.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, QUEBEC EAST CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaule: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Quebec East?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. Two-(a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service; (b) Quebec and Jon-quiere-Kenogami (No. 2)-highway service; (c) Quebec-repainting of mail boxes; (d) Quebec-repairing and repainting of mail boxes.

Questions
2.	(a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service: Sylvio Giroux, Village of St-Prime, $24,500.00; Rosaire Goudreault, Albanel, $24,900.00; Johnny Perron, Box 31, Mistassini, $25,600.00; Federal Delivery Inc. (Rosaire Blouin) 46 Moreau Sud, Quebec, $27,106.00; Louis Rene Doucet, Normandin, $29,800.00; Almas Bouchard, Box 128, Normandin, $30,000.00; Pruneau & Pruneau Enr., Desbiens, $31,200.00; Raoul Bouchard, Box 134, Mistassini, $32,860.00; Louis Arthur Girard, Box 32, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $33,990.00; Bernard Ouellet, 87 Turgeon, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, Alphonse Tremblay, 4 Pot-vin, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $34,964.00; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $35,368.00; Isidore Pelletier, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $36,945.00; Edmour Pilote, St-Felicien, $38,250.00; Rosaire Lamontagne et Roger Lamontagne, Box 961, Dolbeau, $38,980.00; Marcelin Meroz, 317 Blvd. Sacre-Coeur, St-Felicien, $40,605.00; Transport Frontenac Ltee (Antoine Chabot), 263 St-Paul, Quebec, $41,226.28; Edmour St. Pierre, Albanel, $60,000.00.
Tender received which did not meet departmental requirements: Henri Audet, St-Felicien, $25,136.00.
(b)	Quebec and Jonquiere-Kenogami (No. 2)-highway service: Ephrem Dufresne, 234 St. Francois, Jonquiere, $12,950.00; Henri Bouchard, 220 St. Georges Road, Jonquiere, $14,750.00; Francois Nolin, 131-7th St., Limoi-lou, Quebec 3, $14,789.00; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $14,872.00; Clermont Quirion, 97A Ber-natchez, Quebec 8, $15,000.00; Epiphane Si-mard, 173-8th Ave., Port Alfred, $15,730.47; Pierre Fortin, 209 Pare, Arvida, $16,900.00; Transport Frontenac Ltee (Antoine Chabot), 265 St-Paul, Quebec, $17,921.28; J. Arthur Bonneau, 136 Ste-Famille, Kenogami, $18,200.00; Fernand Houde, 20-3rd Ave., Quebec 3, $20,000.00; Edmond Paradis, 228 Couture, Arvida, $22,070.00; Arthur Harvey, 422 Blvd. Auger, Alma, $26,250.00.
Tenders received which did not meet departmental requirements:	Georges Henri
Guay, 6 Long Sault Sud, Jonquiere, $19,800.00; Arvida Camion-Taxi Enr. (Laurent Rousseau), 123 Calais, Arvida, $24,000.00.
(c)	Quebec-repainting of mail boxes: Marc Gregoire, $533.00; E.M.M. Enr., $558.00; Vital Beriault, $957.60; Rolin Construction Inc., $1,039.50; Menard & Freres, $1,160.00; Revete-ment Mural Inc., $1,255.00; Jean-Marc Parent, $1,266.00.
(d)	Quebec-repairing and repainting of mail boxes: E.M.M. Enr., $1,248.00; Menard & Freres, $1,997.00; Revetement Mural Inc., $2,670.00; Vital Beriault, $3,130.30; Jean-Marc Parent, $3,384.00.
3.	See No. 2 above.

4.	(a) Sylvio Giroux, (b) Ephrem Dufresne,.
(c)	the contract has not yet been awarded,.
(d)	the contract has not yet been awarded.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, QUEBEC WEST CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Plourde: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Quebec West?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four: (a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service; (b) Quebec and Jonquiere-Kenogami (No. 2)-highway service; (c) Quebec-repainting of mail boxes; (d) Quebec-repairing and repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Quebec and Mistassini-highway service:	Sylvio Giroux, Village de St-Prime,
$24,500.00; Rosaire Goudreault, Albanel, $24,900.00; Johnny Perron, Box 31, Mistassini, $25,600.00; Federal Delivery Inc. (Rosaire Blouin) 46 Moreau Sud, Quebec, $27,106.00; Louis Rene Doucet, Normandin, $29,800.00; Almas Bouchard, Box 128, Normandin, $30,000.00; Pruneau & Pruneau Enr., Desbiens, $31,200.00; Raoul Bouchard, Box 134, Mistassini, $32,860.00; Louis Arthur Girard, Box 32, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $33,990.00; Bernard Ouellet, 87 Turgeon, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, Alphonse Tremblay, 4 Potvin, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $34,964.00; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $35,368.00; Isidore Pelletier, Notre Dame d'Hebertville, $36,945.00; Edmour Pilote, St-Felicien, $38,250.00; Rosaire Lamontagne, Roger Lamontagne, Box 961, Dolbeau, $38,980.00; Marcelin Meroz, 317 Blvd. Sacre-Coeur, St-Felicien, $40,605.00; Transport Frontenac Ltee., (Antoine Chabot) 263 St. Paul, Quebec, $41,226.28; Edmour St. Pierre, Albanel, $60,000.00.
Tender received which did not meet departmental requirements:	Henri Audet, St.
Felicien, $25,136.00.
(b)	Quebec and Jonquiere-Kenogami (No. 2)-highway service: Ephrem Dufresne, 234 St. Francois, Jonquiere, $12,950.00; Henri Bouchard, 220 Chemin St. Georges, Jonquiere, $14,750.00; Francois Nolin, 131-7eme rue, Limoilou, Quebec 3, $14,789.00; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $14,872.00; Clermont Quirion, 97A Bernatchez, Quebec 8, $15,000.00; Epiphane Simard, 173-8eme Ave., Port Alfred, $15,730.47; Pierre Fortin, 209 Pare, Arvida, $16,900.00; Transport Frontenac Ltee (Antoine

Chabot), 265 St-Paul, Quebec, $17,921.28; J. Arthur Bonneau, 136 Ste-Famille, Kenogami, $18,200.00; Fernand Houle, 20-3ieme Ave., Quebec 3, $20,000.00; Edmond Paradis, 228 Couture, Arvida, $22,070.00; Arthur Harvey, 422 Blvd. Auger, Alma, $26,250.00.
Tenders received which did not meet departmental requirements:	Georges Henri
Guay, 6 Long Sault Sud, Jonquiere, $19,800.00; Arvida Camion-Taxi Enr. (Laurent Rousseau) 123 Calais, Arvida, $24,000.00.
(c)	Quebec-painting of mail boxes: Marc Gregoire, $533.00; E. M. M. Enrg., $558.00; Vital Beriault, $957.60; Rolin Construction Inc., $1,039.50; Menard & Freres, $1,160.00; Revete-ment mural Inc., $1,255.00; Jean Marc Parent, $1,266.00.
(d)	Quebec-repairing and repainting of mail boxes: E. M. M. Enr., $1,248.00; Menard & Freres, $1,997.00; Revetement mural Inc., $2,670.00; Vital Beriault, $3,130.30; Jean Marc Parent, $3,384.00.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Sylvio Giroux; (b) Ephrem Dufresne; (c) contract not yet awarded; (d) contract not yet awarded.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8. 1963, for the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four, (a) Stanhope and Sherbrooke-highway service; (b) Sawyerville R. R. No. 2; (c) Paquette R. R. No. 2; (d) Lac Megantic-repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Stanhope and Sherbrooke-highway service; Edouard Racicot, 688 Goupil, Sherbrooke (withdrawn), $7,802.99; J. Emile Gau-dette, 705 McManamy, Sherbrooke, $9,016; Fernand Beauvais, 485 - 11 ave., nord, Sherbrooke, $9,323.20.
Tender received which did not meet departmental requirements: Clement Giroux, 48311 ave., nord, Sherbrooke, $10,224.
(b)	Sawyerville R. R. No. 2: Berchmans Gendron, Box 68, Sawyerville, $1,488; Mrs. Donald Morrow, Sawyerville, $1,839; Glen-don L. Morrison, R. R. No. 3, Sawyerville, $2,000.
(c)	Paquette R. R. No. 2: Aime Inkel, Paquette, $1,200.
Questions
(d) Lac Megantic-repainting of mail boxes: Claude Beaudoin, $60; Gaston Lor-ange, $49.25.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) J. Emile Gaudette; (b) decision pending; (c) decision pending; (d) Gaston Lorange.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Boutin: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or for how many contracts have bids been called by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, for the constituency of Dorchester?
2.	Who were the bidders on these contracts?
3.	What were the bids of each of them?
4.	To whom were the contracts let?
5.	Who was responsible for distribution of tender forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. Two, (a) St-Isidore-de-Dor-chester R. R. No. 2; (b) Scott Jonction R. R. No. 1.
2.	(a) St-Isidore-de-Dorchester R. R. No. 2: Napoleon Mercier, St-Isidore, $2,100.
(b)	Scott Jonction R. R. No. 1; Yvon Gig-uere, Scott Jonction, $816; Noel Giguere, Ste-Marie, $900.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Napoleon Mercier; (b) Yvon Giguere.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, VILLENEUVE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouefte: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or how many contracts have tenders been called for by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, in the constituency of Villeneuve?
2.	Who were the tenderers for these contracts?
3.	What was the amount bid by each tenderer?
4.	To whom were these contracts awarded?
5.	Who was responsible for distributing the tender documents?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four: (a) Noranda, repainting of mail boxes; (b) Noranda, repairing and repainting of mail boxes; (c) Val d'Or, repainting of mail boxes; (d) Val d'Or, repair-ig and repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Noranda, repainting of mail boxes: Henri Trepanier, $305; Clement Demers, $469.20; Anicet Boucher, $472.40.
(b) Noranda, repainting and repairing of mail boxes: Georges Thibault, $352; J. H. Thibault, $384; Marcel Pepin, $400.
Note: The above tenders were unacceptable and cancelled. As a result new tenders were

Questions
called and the following received: (a) L. Laquerre, $249; Henri Trepanier, $305; John David Ltee, $360; G. A. David & Fils, $375.
(b)	L. Laquerre, $240; A. Beaudoin, $288; Thiffault Auto Body and Service, $400; Garage A. D. Provencher and Sons Ltd., $560.
2.	(c) Val d'Or, repainting of mail boxes: Courchesne and Lafleur, $64; Desjardins and Laveme, $72; Val d'Or painting registered, $96; Valere Bolduc, $120.
(d)	Val d'Or, repairing and repainting of mail boxes; Valere Bolduc, $15; Desjardins and Laverne, $15; Courchesne and Lafleur, $20; Val d'Or Painting Registered, $27.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) L. Laquerre; (b) L. Laquerre; (c) Courchesne and Lafleur; (d) Desjardins and Laverne.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, LAPOINTE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or how many contracts have tenders been called for by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, in the constituency of Lapointe?
2.	Who were the tenderers for those contracts?
3.	What was the amount bid by each tenderer?
4.	To whom were these contracts awarded?
5.	Who was responsible for distributing the tender documents?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four, (a) Alma and Jonquiere-Chicoutimi-highway service; (b) Quebec and Jonquiere-Kenogami (No. 2) highway service;
(c)	Arvida-repainting of mail boxes; (d) Arvida-repairing and repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Alma and Jonquiere-Chicoutimi- highway service; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $3,600.00; Laurent Rousseau, 123 Calais, Arvida, $4,592.00; Nicol Tremblay, Jonquiere, $5,160.00; Messagerie Villeneuve Enr. (C. E. Villeneuve), 180A St-Dominique, Jonquiere, $5,185.00; Welley Plourde, 245 Harvey-Est, Alma, $5,947.69; Tremblay Equipement Ltee (Antoine Tremblay), St. Bruno, $6,631.00; Leo Gauthier, 108 Price-Est, Chicoutimi, $7,250.00; J. Paul Henri Tremblay, 619 St-Sacrement, Alma, $7,500.00; Charlemagne Gagnon, St-Bruno, $7,800.00; Arthur Harvey, 422 Blvd. Auger, Alma, $7,862.40; Edmond Paradis, 228 Couture, Arvida, $8,080.00; Louis Joseph Fortin, 36 St-Luc, Chicoutimi, $10,000.00; Jean-Roch Lapointe, 49 du Ro-saire, Chicoutimi Nord, $10,850.00; Georges Henri Guay, 6 Long-Sault Sud, Jonquiere, $11,500.00; Camille Mailloux, 289 Labreque, 
Arvida, $17,700.00; Arvida Camion-Taxi Enr. (Laurent Rousseau), 123 Calais, Arvida (late tender), $6,500.00.
(b)	Quebec and Jonquiere-Kenogami (No. 2) highway service: Ephrem Dufresne, 234 St. Frangois, Jonquiere, $12,950.00; Henri Bouchard, 220 Chemin St-Georges, Jonquiere, $14,750.00; Frangois Nolin, 131-7ieme rue, Limoilou, Quebec, $14,789.00; Jean Neron, Box 23, Alma, $14,872.00; Clermont Quirion, 97A Bernatchez, Quebec 8, $15,000.00; Epi-phane Simard, 173-8 Ave., Port Alfred, $15,730.47; Pierre Fortin, 209 Pare, Arvida, $16,900.00; Transport Frontenac Ltee (Antoine Chabot), 265 St-Paul, Quebec, $17,921.28; J. Arthur Bonneau, 136 Ste-Famille, Keno-gami, $18,200.00; Fernand Houde, 20-3ieme ave., Quebec 3, $20,000.00; Edmond Paradis, 228 Couture, Arvida, $22,070.00; Arthur Harvey, 422 Blvd. Auger, Alma, $26,250.00.
Tenders received which did not meet departmental requirements:	Georges Henri
Guay, 6 Long Sault Sud, Jonquiere, $19,800.00; Arvida Camion-Taxi Enr. (Laurent Rousseau), 123 Calais, Arvida, $24,000.00.
(c)	Arvida-repainting of mail boxes: Atelier de Peinture Inc., $110.00; Simard & Simard Construction Inc., $121.00.
(d)	Arvida-repairing and repainting of mail boxes; Atelier de Peinture Inc., $353.00; Simard & Simard Construction Inc., $374.00.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Jean Neron; (b) Ephrem Dufresne;
(c)	Atelier de Peinture Inc.; (d) Atelier de Peinture Inc.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, MEGANTIC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or how many contracts have tenders been called for by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, in the constituency of Megantic?
2.	Who were the tenderers for these contracts?
3.	What was the amount bid by each tenderer?
4.	To whom were these contracts awarded?
5.	Who was responsible for distributing the tender documents?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four: (a) Lemesurier, R.R. No. 1; (b) Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, R.R. No. 1; (c) Thetford Mines, repainting of mail boxes;
(d)	Thetford Mines, repairing and repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Lemesurier, R.R. No. 1: Emilien Routhier, R.R. 1, Lemesurier, $1,150; Gerald Tuite, Lemesurier, $1,260; Louis Denis Bisson, Lemesurier, $1,500; Robert Alexander Wilkin, Lemesurier, $1,500.

(b)	Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, R.R. No. 1: Edmond Turgeon, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $824; Arthur Roberge, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $885; Leo Pellerin, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $936.20; Roland Gosselin, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $1,140; Armand Mathieu, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $1,149; Emile Beaudoin, Ste-Sophie-de-Megantic, $1,290.
(c)	Thetford Mines, repainting of mail boxes: Marius Rouleau, $587; (d) Thetford Mines, repairing and repainting of mail boxes: Marcel Blanchette, $68; Real Houde, $107; Raymond Blais, $115; Marius Rouleau, $152.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Emilien Routhier; (b) Edmond Turgeon; (c) contract not yet awarded; (d) Marcel Blanchette.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many contracts have been let, or how many contracts have tenders been called for by the Post Office Department since April 8, 1963, in the constituency of Chapleau?
2.	Who were the tenderers for these contracts?
3.	What was the amount bid by each tenderer?
4.	To whom were these contracts awarded?
5.	Who was responsible for distributing the tender documents?


Azellus Denis: 1. Four: (a) Authier, R.R. No. 1; (b) Guyenne, R.R. No. 1; (c) Mancebourg' R.R. No. 1; (d) Amos, repainting of mail boxes.
2.	(a) Authier, R.R. No. 1: Delphis Blais, Authier, $2,400.
(b)	Guyenne, R.R. No. 1: Leo Ouellet, Guyenne, $1,150; Alphonse St. Pierre, $1,860.
(c)	Mancebourg, R.R. 1: Napoleon Theberge, Ste-Helene-Mancebourg, $2,545; Fernand Fournier, Ste-Helene-Mancebourg, $2,589; Antonio Labrecque, Mancebourg, $2,700.
(d)	Amos, repainting of mail boxes: Rene Guerin, $40; Aurele Trudeau, $64; Yvon Gauthier, $64.
3.	See No. 2 above.
4.	(a) Delphis Blais; (b) Leo Ouellet; (c) decision pending; (d) Rene Guerin.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmasters.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR FARM CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, how many applications for loans have been made for the construction of farm buildings (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) county of Chapleau?
Questions
2.	How many of these applications have been refused (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Mr. Benson:: 1. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the government guarantees loans made by the chartered banks. Data on the number of applications made to the banks, and on the number of those rejected, are not available. Statistics on operations under the act are compiled only for loans actually made. Loan statistics, as published in the annual reports on operations under the act, show loans made by purpose and by province, but not by counties. Provincial breakdowns of loans classified by purpose have been available only since 1953.
2.	Loans made for the construction, repair or alteration of farm homes and buildings
1945 to 1962	1953 to 1962
No. Amount No. Amount

Canada 66,100 105,740,290 50,639 88,837,465 Quebec n.a n.a 4,733 8,047,506
Details on lending operations during 1962 are contained in the 18th annual report which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 1963.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR LIVESTOCK
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, how many applications for loans have been made for the purchase of farm animals (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?
2.	How many of these applications have been refused (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Edgar John Benson: 1. and 2. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the government guarantees loans made by the chartered banks. Data on the number of applications made to the banks, and on the number of those rejected, are not available. Statistics on operations under the act are compiled only for loans actually made. Loan statistics, as published in the annual reports on operations under the act show loans made by purpose and by province, but not by counties. Provincial breakdowns of loans classified by purpose have been available only since 1953.
Loans made for the purchase of livestock
1945 to 1962	1953 to 1962
No. Amount No. Amount

Canada 70,877	76,046,532 59,379 66,592,919
Quebec n.a n.a 8,018 9,912,876

Questions
Details on lending operations during 1962 are contained in the 18th annual report which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 1963.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In addition to loans granted under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, for the purchase of farm implements, the construction of farm buildings, and for the purchase of livestock, how many applications have been received for loans for other improvements (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?
2.	How many of these applications were refused (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the government guarantees loans made by the chartered banks. Data on the number of applications made to the banks, and on the number of those rejected, are not available. Statistics on operations under the act are compiled only for loans actually made. Loan statistics, as published in the annual reports on operations under the act, show loans made by purpose and by province, but not by counties. Provincial breakdowns of loans classified by purpose have been available only since 1953.
Canada
Quebec
Loans Made for Other Farm Improvements
No.	Amount

35,769	27,466,211
n.a.	n.a.
No.	Amount

22,510	21,158,766
1,511	1,712,750
Details on lending operations during 1962 are contained in the 18th annual report which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 1963.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, how many applications for loans have been made for the purchase of farm implements (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?
2.	How many of these applications have been refused (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the government guarantees loans made by the chartered banks. Data on the number of applications made by the banks and on the number of those rejected are not available. Statistics on operations under the act are compiled only for loans actually made. Loan statistics, as published in the annual reports on operations under the act, show loans made by purpose and by province, but not by counties. Provincial breakdowns of loans classified by purpose have been available only since 1953.
Canada
Quebec
Loans Made for the Purchase of Agricultural Implements
1945 to 1962 No.	Amount

833,349	1,030,765,705
n.a.	n.a.
1953 to 1962 No.	Amount

541,627	709,792,506
73,602	97,816,613
Details on lending operations during 1962 are contained in the 18th annual report which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 1963.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, how many applications for loans have been made (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?

2.	How many of these applications have been refused (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the government guarantees loans made by the chartered banks. Data on the number of applications made to the banks, and on the number of those rejected, are not available. Statistics on operations under the act are compiled only for

loans actually made. Loan statistics, as published in the annual reports on operations under the act, show loans made by purpose
Questions
and by province, but not by counties. Provincial breakdowns of loans classified by purpose have been available only since 1953.
Canada
Quebec
Total Farm Improvement 1945-1962
No.	Amount

1,006,095	1,240,018,738
104,897	136,195,347
Loans Made
No.	Amount

674,155	886,381,656
87,864	117,549,745
Details on lending operations during 1962 are contained in the 18th annual report which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 1963.


GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES, QUEBEC MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Gauthier: What amounts has the Department of Transport expended during 1961 and 1962 in grants in lieu of taxes on federal property within the municipalities in which the following airports are located (a) Uplands (b) Dorval (c) Ancienne Lorette (d) Bagotville?


Edgar John Benson: 
BANK OF CANADA LOANS
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada made any loans during the past five years and, if so, what was the
28902-5-298
total of such loans, and what rate of interest was charged in each case?
2.	Were such loans granted to the federal government and, if so, what was the amount of each loan, and what was the rate of interest charged in each case?
3.	Did the Bank of Canada make any loans to provincial governments, and, if so, what was the amount of each loan, and the rate of interest charged in each case and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Has the Bank of Canada made any loans to crown corporations or to any other company and, if so, what was the amount, and the rate of interest in each case?

Questions


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3. The amounts of advances made by the Bank of Canada and a record of the bank rate of interest charged on advances appear in the monthly statistical summary published by the Bank of Canada.
4.	No.


MENTAL HEALTH GRANTS AND COMMITMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many psychiatrists in training are in receipt of training grants from the federal government?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of the grants?
4.	What are the plans for next year's grants?
5.	What commitments have been made for the next five years to the universities and the medical colleges, in the field of mental health?
6.	What requests have been made by the medical colleges for the next five years in the field of mental health?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Under the national health grants, 180 psychiatrists are in receipt of training grants during the fiscal year 1963-64.
2.	Payments to trainees in psychiatry under the national health grants are made as follows:
(a) Bursaries to trainees taking professional training are set by the provinces according to the need of the individual, but they are not to exceed $250 monthly for persons without dependants and $300 for persons with dependants. Besides a bursary, a trainee may receive travel expenses to and from the place of training, only once during the training period; transportation costs to and from the place of training when a trainee is out on field work outside his training centre; tuition fees as actually charged by the training institution; and an allowance for books and technical supplies not exceeding $50 for the
full course. Bursaries may be claimed for trainees during the period of actual training. This period may include a reasonable period of travel to and from the training centre. It is understood that the provinces, in certain cases, supplement the federal assistance.
(b) For short training courses, the duration of which does not exceed three months, actual, reasonable living expenses may be requested. Living expenses are to be accounted for on the basis of provincial regulations governing travelling and maintenance expenses.
3.	For 1963-64, an amount of $285,370 is being allocated for the training of psychiatrists.
4.	The national health grants represent a federal-provincial program. Provincial plans for the submission of projects against next year's and, to some extent, subsequent years' grants, are presently under study in all provinces. The resulting submissions of projects and consultation with provincial planners will take place over the next few months.
5.	See answers 4 and 6.
6.	The annual submissions of projects received from the provinces on behalf of training, research and health services in medical colleges request the continuance of federal assistance in subsequent years, although a five year period is not always specified.


MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING PROGRAMS, ETC.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of training programs, bursaries, and short courses in the field of mental health in each of the years from 1952-53 to 196162?
2.	What was the total amount available in mental health grants for each of these years?
Training	1.	Short	2.programs	Bursaries	courses	Amountapproved	approved	approved	available1952-53	20	258	67	$6,203,6521953-54	19	291	137	6,203,6521954-55	22	344	154	7,234,8681955-56	18	336	155	7,234,8681956-57	17	333	156	7,234,8681957-58	17	358	194	7,234,8681958-59	19	379	147	7,234,8681959-60	20	394	196	7,234,8681960-61	22	409	178	8,765,3911961-62	20	398	218	8,765,391


ENTERPRISE, ONT., POSTMASTER
Mr. Webb: 1.	Who was the postmaster at Enterprise, Ontario, from January 1, 1963 to August 27, 1963?
2.	Was the widow of the deceased Clare Stewart at Enterprise approached following her husband's death to take over the said post office?
3.	Is she a veteran?
4.	What was the total revenue of the said post office in each of the years, 1961, 1962, and 1963 to date?
5.	Who has been appointed as postmaster, and is such appointee a veteran?


Azellus Denis: 1. Mr. Clare A. Stewart.
2.	The widow of the deceased Clare Stewart was placed in charge of the office on a temporary basis pending a new appointment.
3.	Not a veteran entitling her to veterans preference. Mrs. Stewart served in Canada only.
4.	1960-61, $1,303.04; 1961-62, $1,269.52; 1962-
63, $1,421.85; 1st April to 30th September 1963 $611.53.	'
5.	Mrs. Thomas Dillon. Mrs. Dillon is not a veteran.
'' executive assistant to privy council


PRESIDENT
Mr. Valade: 1.	Is a Mr. Brady employed as executive assistant to the President of the Privy Council?
2.	Did the Prime Minister receive a letter dated July 2 from the mayor of Montreal relating to the activities of Mr. Brady and, if so, what was the nature of its contents?
3.	Has Mr. Brady been in touch with the mayor of Montreal or Mr. Saulnier on behalf of the President of the Privy Council since April 8, 1963 and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: 1. The answer to part one is yes.
2.	The answer to part two is as follows: The right hon. Prime Minister received
from the mayor of Montreal a letter dated July 2.
This letter was not about Mr. Brady's activities. His name was mentioned incidentally with regard to a telephone call he had made to Mr. Lucien Saulnier from the Prime Minister's residence.
3.	The answer to part three is no.
[Textl


*USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES
Mr. Herridge: Which departments of government permit the use of government vehicles by officials, employees or their wives for church attendance, shopping and recreational activities where these facilities are more than a mile from the residences of those persons so favoured?
28902-5-298J
Questions


Edgar John Benson: In its circular letter of November 25, 1954 (1954-24), the treasury board directed departments that the non-official use of government vehicles was prohibited unless the specific approval of the treasury board was obtained. In this regard the board in the same letter indicated that such approval might be granted in special cases where units are situated in isolated areas, and where there is no alternative transportation or the alternative transportation is most inadequate. Also, approval would be confined to such purposes as collection of mail, essential shopping, transportation of children to school, medical and dental attention, etc.
Employees of the following departments, who are working under the foregoing conditions, have been permitted to use departmental vehicles to attend to their personal needs and activities on the strength of individual authorities granted to their departments by the board:
Department of Agriculture, experimental research station at Manyberries, Alta.; Department of Citizenship and Immigration, assistant superintendent at Battleford Indian agency, Sask.; Department of Forestry, forest research stations at Cornerbrook, Nfld., Fredericton, N.B., Quebec, P.Q., Maple, Ont., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Winnipeg, Man., Saskatoon, Sask., Calgary, Alta., Vernon, B.C., Victoria, B.C.; Department of Justice (penitentiaries), use of penitentiary bus to transport employees to annual picnics; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, dominion observatory research stations in Alberta; Department of National Defence, defence research board, Suffield experimental station, Alta., D.R.B. northern laboratory, Fort Churchill, Man.; Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, national parks and northern administration Arctic posts personnel; Department of Transport, in isolated areas of the country where remote airports and aeradio stations are located.


FRENCH CANADIAN PRESIDENTS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	(a) Since his appointment as president of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, has Mr. Marc Lamoureux succeeded in increasing the turnover of that firm (b) have Mr. Lamoureux's duties and authority been reduced and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is Mr. Lamoureux the only Canadian of French origin who is president of a crown corporation coming under the Departments of Industry or Defence Production and, if not, are there others, what are their names and, in each case, have their authority and prerogatives been reduced?


Mr. Drury:: 
EDMONTON AIRPORT TERMINAL
Mr. Lambert: 1. Have any murals been completed for Installation in the terminal building of the Edmonton international airport and, if so, how many?
2 Who were the artists commissioned, and what was the amount of their respective commissions?
3.	On whose recommendation were the said artists commissioned, and by whom were their works approved?
4.	If the recommendation was by a committee or board, who were the members of the committee or board?


George James McIlraith: 1. Two murals have been completed for installation in the new Edmonton terminal building.
2.	Mr. Denis Burton was commissioned for a mural 5'x21' in the amount of $4,500 and Mr. Jack Shadbolt was commissioned for a mural 18'x37' in the amount of $18,000.
3.	The artists were commissioned on the recommendation of the fine art committee for the Edmonton terminal building.
4.	Miss Suzanne Rivard, of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, Montreal, Que.; Dr. Charles F. Comfort, director of the national gallery of Canada, Ottawa; Dr. Henry Kreisel, head of the department of English, University of Alberta, Edmonton; Professor John A. Russell, director of the school of architecture, University of Manitoba; Professor W. Gerson, acting director, school of architecture, University of British Columbia; Mr. John C. Parkin, chairman of the national design council; Dr. Fred Minsos, consulting architect for the terminal building; Dr. Nathan Stolow, of the national gallery of Canada; Mr. 
W. A. Ramsay, chief architect, major terminals, Department of Transport.


C.N.R. TRUCK SERVICE FROM LEVIS, QUE.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the C.N.R. applied to any board for permission to supply trucking services in lieu of, or complementary to, rail service from Levis to Riviere du Loup?
2.	If such service is established is it projected by C.N.R. planners that this will lead to less rail freight traffic between these points and beyond and, if so, how do these changes affect the implementation of the act to provide for the building of a railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. The company entered into a contractual arrangement with a local truck operator, operating under temporary permit from the Quebec transport board to perform this service as a complement to existing train services.
The service has to do with less carload freight traffic in the territory between Levis and Riviere du Loup as a consequence of adjustments in passenger train consist resulting from improvements in passenger train service. It is not considered that this service has any relation to transportation service between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts.
^SOCIAL AND OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have any statistics showing the number of persons in Canada receiving social assistance or old age assistance benefits?
2.	How many persons are receiving benefits?
3.	What is the federal government's share, in dollars, of such social assistance or old age payments?
4.	What percentage does that amount represent with regard to the contribution made by the provinces?


Mr. Haidasz:: 1. Yes.
2.	As of March 31, 1963; the number of recipients of old age assistance was 103,159; the number of persons being assisted under the Unemployment Assistance Act was 754,164. This figure includes children and other dependents and recipients of other social security benefits who have been granted supplementary aid.
3.	For the fiscal year 1962-63; old age assistance-$38,179,057; unemployment assistance-$96,184,792.
4.	The cost of old age assistance is shared equally by the federal government and the provinces.
Under the terms of the Unemployment Assistance Act, the federal government pays 50 per cent of assistance costs. However,

these exclude certain specified costs, including health costs and costs by way of mothers' allowances which are deducted on a formula basis.


CANADA'S MEMBERSHIP IN NATO
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What are the various obligations undertaken by Canada in connection with NATO?
2.	What was the cost to date this year, and during each of the last five years of Canada's direct participation in NATO?
3.	Is Canada included in the NATO countries who were recently accused of not fulfilling their obligations to the alliance?
4.	What are the names of the members of the diplomatic corps or other persons who represent Canada at the NATO organization?
5.	How many Canadian servicemen are directly committed to NATO?
6.	How much did it cost Canada to maintain these forces during the last fiscal year?
7.	What other commonwealth countries are NATO members and what is their share of the cost in relation to Canada's share?

Answer: 1. Canada's direct commitments to NATO are the army brigade group and the air division in Europe. In addition, the R.C.N. and R.C.A.F. have earmarked certain ships and aircraft to be assigned to SACLANT in an emergency. There are also direct expenditures on mutual aid including contributions to infrastructure and NATO budgets.
2.	Annual expenditures: 1959-60, $342,578,000; 1960-61, $408,916,000; 1961-62, $455,545,000;	1962-63, $465,129,000;	1963-64, $415,-
598,000*.
'Estimated. Approximately $200,000,000 of the 1963-64 appropriation has been spent to October 31, 1963.
3.	No official information is available concerning alleged criticism of NATO countries for not fulfilling their obligations to the alliance.
4.	The Canadian permanent representative to the NATO council in Paris is Mr. G. Ignatieff. He has the rank of ambassador. Other members of the Canadian delegation are: military adviser, Air Vice Marshal R. A. Cameron, C.D.; counsellor, R. H. Jay; counsellor (defence production), P. Solly-Flood; counsellor (defence), A. S. Duncan; counsellor, D. B. Wilson; counsellor (scientific), Dr.
J.	G. Malloch, M.B.E.;,first secretary (finance), R. C. Monk; first secretary, P. A. Bisson-nette; first secretary, J. H. Taylor; first secretary, R. S. MacLean; first secretary (finance), R. Lachaine; first secretary (emergency measures), P. Theriault; assistant military adviser, Lt. Col. W. C. Leonard, M.B.E., C.D.; second secretary (defence production), B. H. E.
Questions
Maynard; second secretary, Miss D. J. Armstrong; second secretary, P. A. Lapointe; attache (administration), Miss J. Dove.
5.	12,200.
6.	See answer to (2) above.
7.	United Kingdom. On the basis of defence expenditures to gross national product, it was estimated that in 1962, the United Kingdom spent 7.4 per cent, Canada 5.1 per cent.


P.O. DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS, KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many contracts were awarded or for how many contracts were tenders called by the Post Office Department for Kamouraska constituency since April 8, 1963?
2.	Who were the tenderers for these contracts?
3.	What was the amount of each ox the tenders?
4.	Who was awarded the contract?
5.	Who was responsible for the distribution of the necessary forms?


Azellus Denis: 1. One-St. Damase-des-Aulnaies R.R. No. 1.
2.	Tenders not yet opened.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5.	The district director of postal service and the postmaster.


*L'ASSOMPTION, QUE.  POST OFFICE PAINTING CONTRACT
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What is the name of the contractor who is now doing paint work at the post office of L'Assomption, Que.?
2.	What are the terms of his contract?
3.	What other contractors were invited to tender for that contract?
4.	Did Mr. Roland Comtois, of Repentigny, in the county of L'Assomption, submit a list of painting contractors to the Department of Public Works in connection with the paint work to be done at the post office of L'Assomption and, if not, what is the name of the person, if any, who submitted such a list?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Mr. Achille Pellerin, Ste. Julienne, Que.
2.	It is a regular painting contract for the exterior repainting of the L'Assomption post office according to the department's specifications and for an amount of $750.
3.	Mr. Henri Adam, 323 St. Louis, Joliette, Que. and Mr. Marcel Drouin, 879 Bord de l'eau, St. Sulpice, Que.
4.	Some correspondence was exchanged with Mr. Comtois, but since this correspondence is personal and confidential, I am unable to divulge its contents.
Questions


PRINCE RUPERT, B.C., GRAIN ELEVATOR
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1962 have any representations been made to the government or any agency or branch thereof suggesting or proposing that the grain elevator in Prince Rupert, B.C., be sold or otherwise disposed of and, if so, what are the details surrounding any such suggestions or proposals?


Mr. Hays:: Representations have recently been received by the Minister of Agriculture and the board of grain commissioners inquiring if the board would entertain the possibility of leasing the Canadian government elevator at Prince Rupert to a group of local businessmen, whose identity was not disclosed. The inquiry contained no detailed suggestions but asked what the yearly lease would be if the leasing proposal was entertained.


MOTOR VEHICLE SUPPLIES, R.C.M.P. DETACHMENT, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria.
Since 1950, what are the names and addresses of the suppliers of gas, oil, tires and other services to motor vehicles of the North Sydney, Nova Scotia, detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Chevrier:: Records are destroyed after five years; however, since 1958 the following firms supplied gas, oil, tires and other services: Austin's Service Station, P.O. Box 96, North Sydney, N.S.; L. A. Steele, P.O. Box 344, North Sydney, N.S.; Gateway Motors Ltd., P.O. Box 757, North Sydney, N.S.; McCormick's Esso Service Station, North Sydney, N.S.; R. J. Logue Ltd., North Sydney, N.S.


PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION, C.N.R. RAIL LINER, SYDNEY-HALIFAX
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: North and Victoria):
Have any complaints been received by the Canadian National Railways during the past six months in regard to overcrowding and shortage of seating accommodation on the rail liner operating between Sydney and Halifax, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what remedial action is contemplated to eliminate the causes of these complaints?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
During the past summer months travel between Sydney and Halifax was exceptionally heavy and on some occasions it was necessary to handle by bus or taxi overflow traffic from such points as New Glasgow and Stellarton. Since mid-September overcrowding has been experienced on five occasions. A complete reexamination of all aspects of the Halifax-Sydney daylight service is being conducted.


*MISS FRANCE DENIS
Mr. Valade: 1.	Is Miss France Denis employed by the government of Canada and, if so, where, in what capacity and on whose recommendation was she appointed?
2.	What is her age, place of birth, institutions of education attended and educational qualifications?
3.	What is her present salary with the government?
4.	What particular qualities of Miss Denis led to her engagement?


Azellus Denis: 1. Yes, as private secretary, in the office of the Postmaster General, in Ottawa.
2.	Montreal. The sisters of St. Ann's boarding school, in Lachine, P.Q.; the mother house of the sisters of Jesus and Mary, in Outre-mont, P.Q.; first year of university course in letters and science.
3.	$7,000 a year.
4.	Since she has been my secretary since 1935, I have complete confidence in this person in all respects.


PUBLICITY POLICY, WORLD FAIR
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Is the government considering the creation of a tourist and information department to consolidate existing government services particularly with respect to the world fair and the Canadian centenary?
2.	If not, what positive action is being considered in order to co-ordinate publicity and informational material with regard to the 1967 exhibition and the centenary?
3.	Which minister will be responsible for the publicity aspect of the world fair?


Mr. Pearson:: 1. No.
2.	The Canadian World Exhibition Corporation and the national centennial administration are agencies of the crown, and each has its own information services.
3.	As indicated above, the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation has its own information services under the direction of the commissioner general. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible for the publicity and information aspects of the Canadian government participation in the world's fair.
^MEETINGS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES COMMISSION


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the advisory committee to the north Pacific fisheries commission had any meetings since its appointment and, if so, upon what dates, where, with whom, and for what purpose?
2.	Are any meetings of the said advisory committee scheduled and, if so, upon what dates, where, with whom, and for what purpose?


Mr. Robichaud:: 1. Yes. May 31, 1963, at Vancouver, with Dr. A. W. H. Needier, deputy minister of fisheries and chairman of Canadian delegation to the then approaching discussions at Washington, D.C., re the north Pacific fisheries convention. Purpose of meeting was presentation and discussion of committee's views.
2.	Yes. November 15, at Vancouver, with Dr. Needier. To deal with problems concerned with annual meeting of the north Pacific fisheries commission and further negotiations regarding the convention.


T.C.A.-TRANSFERS TO MONTREAL FROM WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE
Mr. Churchill: How many personnel have been transferred from the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg, to Montreal, since April 22, 1963?


George James McIlraith: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
During the period in question, there have been five transfers, all of supervisory category, four of these at the individuals' request and one at company request. No nonsupervisory personnel have been transferred in the period.


FISHERIES
Mr. Howard: 1.	What are the names, addresses and positions held by the members appointed by the federal government to the federal-provincial committee on price and wage disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry?
2.	Upon what date, by what authority, and by whom, were these members so appointed?
3.	What are the terms of reference and authority of the said committee?
4.	Has the committee held any meetings and, if so, upon what dates, and at what locations, and what plans exist for future meetings?
Answer: 1. W. R. Hourston, Vancouver, area director Department of Fisheries; J. J. Quinlan, deputy director of investigations and research (Combines Investigation Act), Department of Justice; G. R. Currie, Vancouver, industrial relations officer, Department of Labour.
2.	October 18, 1963, on authority of the Minister of Fisheries.
3.	To examine in detail the problems concerned with price and wage disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry and to submit to both governments recommendations of action necessary to minimize interruptions of fishing operations in the future.
4.	The first meeting will be held on November 14, at Vancouver.
Questions


SALES TAX ON SOFT DRINKS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government to eliminate the sales tax on soft drinks to help offset the increased cost of production caused by the drastic increases in the price of sugar?


Edgar John Benson: The repeal of a tax is a matter of government policy. If the government were to consider recommending such action it would be made known to the house at an appropriate time.


MEGANTIC LAKE REGION
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Is the region of Megantic lake within the constituency of Compton-Frontenac considered as a designated depressed area and, if so, what parishes are included in this area?
2.	If not, for what reasons is this area not considered a designated area?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. The Megantic lake district within the constituency of Compton-Frontenac is part of the national employment service Megantic area. This area has been designated as an area of high winter unemployment, but not as a development area. The national employment service area comprises the entire county of Frontenac with the exception of the townships of Adstock and Price. Included are the township municipalities of Chesham, Gayhurst, Gayhurst Southeast, Marston South, and the united townships of Ditchfield and Spaulding, the municipalities of Milan, Winslow North, Winslow South, Sainte-Cecile-de-Whitton and Saint-Hubert-de-Spaulding, the parish municipalities of Saint-Augustin-de-Woburn, Saint-Leon-de-Marston and Saint-Sebastien, the village municipality of Saint-Sebastien and the town of Megantic, which are in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac. Also included are the municipalities of Lambton, Saint-Evariste-de-Forsyth, the parish municipality of Courcelles and the village municipalities of Lambton and La Guadeloupe in the constituency of Megantic, and the municipality of the united townships of Risborough and part of Marlow, the parish municipalities of Saint-Gedeon and Saint-Hilaire-de-Dorset, the village municipalities of Saint-Ludger and Saint-Gedeon, and the municipality of Saint-Robert-Bellarmin in the constituency of Beauce.
2. The national employment service Megantic area was not designated as a development area because it did not qualify under the established criteria.


DISTRIBUTION OF MEASLES VACCINE
Mr. Gauthier: Does the government intend to sponsor a program for the free distribution of Enders living

Questions
virus vaccine for the prevention of measles and, if not, is there any federal legislation that can be used to control the prices at which the vaccine is sold to the general public?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. The subject of measles vaccine was thoroughly discussed at the dominion council of health and there was no suggestion that it be included as a vaccine for free distribution.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has no power under the Food and Drug Act to control the price of the vaccine.


PUBLICATIONS BY CHIEF, ARCHAEOLOGY SECTION, NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: In respect to the titles of publications edited or written or prepared by the chief of the archaeology section of the national museum, what are they, and in what publications (date, page) can they be found?


Mr. Laing:: As far as they are known to the department, Mr. Taylor's publications to date are as follows:


PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
1.	1951 "Ground and Polish Stone Artifacts", in "The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern Arizona" by J. C. McGregor, Univ. of Illinois Press, pp. 87-100, Urbana.
2.	1957 "Archaeological Work on Southampton Island, 1956", Arctic Circular, April, 1957, Vol. IX, No. 3, pp. 39-41, Ottawa.
3.	1958 "A Note on Sadlermiut Archaeology", Arctic Circular, Vol. X, No. 2, Jan. 1958, p. 30, Ottawa.
4.	1958 "Archaeological Work in Ungava, 1957", Arctic Circular, Vol. X, No. 2, Jan. 1958, pp. 25-27, Ottawa.
5.	1958 "Archaeology in the Canadian Arctic". Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. LXII, No. 3, Sept. 1958, pp. 92-95, Ottawa.
6.	1958 "Ceramics of the Irving Site", in "The Pool and Irving Villages" by J. C. McGregor, pp. 64-75. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
7.	1958 Book review of the "Dawn in Arctic Alaska", by D. Jenness, Anthropologica, No. 6, pp. 156-7, Ottawa.
8.	1958 "Report of Archaeological Survey of the Illinois River Valley" in "The Pool and Irving Villages" by J. C. McGregor, pp. 193208. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
9.	1958 A popular account of Arctic field work of the 1957 season in the "Professional Civil Service Journal".
10.	1959 "Archaeological Work in Ungava and Mansel Island". Arctic Circular, Vol. XI, No. 4, Aug. 1959, pp. 66-68, Ottawa.

11.	1959 "The Mysterious Sadlermiut", the Beaver, Outfit 290, Winter 1959, pp. 26-33, Winnipeg.
12.	1959 "Review and Assessment of the Dorset Problem", Anthropologica, N.S., Vol.
I,	No. 1 and 2, pp. 24-46, Ottawa.
13.	1959 "Skullduggery with Stormhavens" Black's Bulletin, Autumn, 1959, pp. 2-3, Glasgow.
14.	1960 "A Description of Sadlermiut Houses Excavated at Native Point, Southampton Island, N.W.T." in "Contributions to Anthropology, 1957", Bulletin 162 of the National Museum of Canada, pp. 53-100, Ottawa.
15.	1960 Book Review of "The Eskimos" by
K.	Birket-Smith, Anthropologica, N.S. Vol.
II,	No. 1, pp. 132-33, Ottawa.
16.	1960 With W. S. Laughlin as co-author "A Cape Dorset Site at Payne Bay, Ungava" in "Contributions to Anthropology, 1958", Bulletin 167 of the National Museum of Canada, pp. 1-28, Ottawa.
17.	1960 "Archaeological Work at Ivugivik and Mansel Island, 1959" in Arctic Circular, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Aug. 1960, pp. 1-4, Ottawa.
18.	1961 "The Eskimos: Some Comments and Reply", Anthropologica, N.S. Vol. Ill, No. 1, pp. 85-89, Ottawa.
19.	1961 Review of "Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes" by G. I. Quimby, Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. LXIII, No. 3, Sept. 1961, pp. VI-VIII, Ottawa.
20.	1961 Review of "Eskimo Sculpture" by Jorgen Meldgaard, Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. LXIII, No. 5, Nov. 1961, Ottawa.
21.	1962 "A Distinction Between Blades and Microblades in the American Arctic". American Antiquity, Vol. 27, No. 3, Jan. 1962, pp. 425-26, Salt Lake City.
22.	1962 "Comments on the Nature and Origin of the Dorset Culture" in Problems of the Pleistocene and Arctic, Vol. II, pp. 5667, McGill University, Montreal.
23.	1962 "Pre-Dorset Occupations at Ivugivik in Northwestern Ungava", in "Prehistoric Cultural Relations Between the Arctic and Temperate Zones of North America", ed. J. Campbell, Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper No. 11, pp. 80-91 + 2 plates + 1 table, Montreal.
24.	1963 "Archaeological Collections from the Joy Bay Region, Ungava Peninsula". Arctic Circular, Vol. XV, No. 2, April, 1963, pp. 24-36, Ottawa.
25.	1963 "Hypotheses on the Origin of Canadian Thule Culture", American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 4, April, 1963, pp. 456-464, Salt Lake City.

26.	1963 "Implications of a Pre-Dorset Lance Head from the Eastern Canadian Arctic". Arctic, Vol. 16, No. 2, June, 1963, pp. 129-134, Montreal.
27.	1963 Review of "An Archaeological Collection from Somerset Island and Boothia Peninsula" by J. W. Van Stone. Arctic, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 1963, pp. 144-45, Montreal.

[Stage Direction]
28.	1963 Review of "Hunters of the Buried Years" by A. B. Kehoe, Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. LXVII, No. 4, pp. V-VI, Oct. 1963, Ottawa.
29.	1963 "The Prehistory of Labrador Peninsula" in "Etudes Economiques et Humaines au Nouveau Quebec" Bibliotheque Arctique et Antarctique, Tome 2. Publication de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Mou-ton et Co., Paris, La Haye.

[Stage Direction]
30.	"Le Prehistoire de la Peninsule du Labrador" an anthropology paper of the National Museum of Canada.
31.	"A Contribution to the Study of Dorset Culture Origins" a bulletin of the National Museum of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
32.	"Thule Culture Villages on Bathurst and Somerset Islands, N.W.T." for National Museum of Canada "Contributions to Anthropology".
33.	"An Archaeological Survey between Cape Parry and Cambridge Bay, N.W.T. 1963" for Arctic anthropology.
34.	"A Dorset Culture Site on Melville Island, N.W.T." with V. Henoch as junior author for Arctic.
35.	"Prehistory of the Canadian Tundra" a chapter for "The Prehistory of Canada", a special National Museum of Canada volume.
36.	"Prehistory of Quebec" with J. V. Wright as co-author, a Chapter for "The Prehistory of Canada", a special National Museum of Canada volume, being compiled and edited by W. E. Taylor.

[Stage Direction]
37. N.M.C., Bull. 167, "Contributions to Anthropology, 1958", Ottawa 1960, pp. 1-79.
38. N.M.C., Bull. 180, "Contributions to Anthropology, 1960", Part One, pp. 1-190, Ottawa 1962.
39.	N.M.C., Bull. 170, "An Archaeological Analysis of Eastern Grant Land, Ellesmere
28902-5-299
Questions
Island, Northwest Territories", by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 1-109, Ottawa 1960.
40.	"The Human Skeleton, A manual for Archaeologists", by J. E. Anderson, pp. 1164, Ottawa, 1962.
41.	N.M.C., Bull. 184, "The Donaldson Site" by J. V. Wright and J. E. Anderson, pp. 1113, Ottawa, 1963.
42.	7 papers and 1 monograph now in press with The National Museum of Canada were also edited. The authors included are Pendergast, Anderson, Sanger, Harp, Demir-jean, Rousseliere, Channen and Clarke, and Wright, Levesque and Osborne.
43.	Edited for the past few years, archaeology manuscripts for the journal, "Anthro-pologica".
44.	Edited papers for several authors prior to their publication in other journals.

Mr. Howard: 1.	For the weeks ending (a) October 7	(b)
October 14 (c) October 21, and (d) October 28, how many railway cars of grain were unloaded at Prince Rupert, B.C.?
2.	For each month in 1963, what amount of grain by (a) number of railway cars (b) volume (c) grade, and (d) type, was unloaded at Prince Rupert?


Harry William Hays: 1. Cars of grain unloaded at the Canadian government elevators, Prince Rupert, B.C.-week ending (a) October 7, 51; (b) October 14, 77; (c) October 21, 103; (d) October 28, 87.
2.	Grain unloaded at the above elevator, by months in 1963:
	(a) No. of	(b) Amount
	cars	bu.
January	145	256,228February	297	529,495March	306	546,324April	469	855,096May	282	529,490June	340	637,202July	258	477,503August	26	48,724September	48	87,774Total 9 months	2,171	3,967,836
Complete statistics for October are not yel available.
(c) and (d) Basically No. 5 wheat.


EXTENSION OP MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Mr. Cantelon: 1.	Has the government received representations from the Saskatchewan school trustees association requesting that local school districts be entitled to share in the benefits of the municipal development and loan fund under the terms of the agreement with the government of Saskatchewan for the control of disbursement of moneys?

Questions
2.	Is the government prepared to change the regulations so that the benefits of the act may be extended to school districts?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes.
2. The act and regulations do not exclude the possibility of extending the benefits that are available to school districts. Should a province wish this to be done in its case it should advise the municipal development and loan board accordingly. On receipt of such a request the board will recommend to the governor in council that school districts within that province be designated as municipalities under section 2(d)(i) of the act, provided they are incorporated bodies and have the authority to raise money by issuing debentures.


AKLAVIK, N.W.T.  ATTENDANCE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN ELSEWHERE
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many school age children from Aklavik, N.W.T. attend school hostels at other points in the N.W.T.?
2.	How many of these children are in each of the following categories (a) grades 1 to 6 (b) grades 7 to 12 (c) vocational training (d) other?
3.	What is the total estimated cost per year for transportation, maintenance and incidentals for these school children in each of the four categories in part (2) above?
4.	Has the government any plans to establish a school-hostel at Aklavik, N.W.T., and, if so, when will this be done; if not, will the government look into the possibility and desirability of providing a school-hostel at Aklavik, N.W.T.?


Arthur Laing: 1. 61.
2.	(a) 33; (b) 24; (c) 4; (d) nil.
3.	(a) 42,009; (b) 30,552; (c) 5,092; (d) N.A.
4.	Not at present; the situation is being kept under review.


APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORT LICENCE, YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Has the board of transport commissioners received an application from Frenchy's Transport Limited of Yellowknife, N.W.T., for a license to transport goods by water and, if so, when was this application received, and what decision has been made?
2.	If no decision has yet been made, what is causing the delay, and when does the board estimate it will be in a position to reach a decision?


George James McIlraith: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Yes, on October 17, 1963. No decision has been made to date.
2.	Other persons already providing transport facilities within the Mackenzie river watershed are entitled to file submissions with the board with respect to this application not later than November 22,	1963.
Frenchy's Transport Limited is also entitled to make reply to such submissions. When these submissions and replies have been received, the board will be in a position to determine the matter.


MAGNETISM SURVEY OF NORTH
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What will be the total estimated cost of the magnetism survey of the Canadian north beginning next week?
2.	What amount will be paid for the charter of aircraft?
3.	What companies or firms will do the flying?
4.	Were public tenders called for the charter of aircraft and, if so, which companies submitted bids, and what were each of these bids?


Mr. Benidicltson:: 1. $104,950.
2.	Approximately $100,000.
3.	Wardair Canada Limited.
4.	No, but 19 companies reported by the air transport board as holding valid class A licences were invited to tender, and the company submitting the lowest tender was selected.
5i:REVELSTOKE NATIONAL PARK


SUPERINTENDENT'S RESIDENCE
Mr. Herridge: 1.	When was the residence of the superintendent of the Revelstoke national park built?
2.	What is the total area of the floor space in this residence?
3.	What was the total amount paid to the contractor for the construction of the residence of the superintendent of the Revelstoke national park?
4.	What additional expense was incurred by the employment of park employees on further improvements to the basement rooms, etc. and for the material required for this work?
5.	What amount has been paid to contractors or other persons for this residence since it was built?


Arthur Laing: 1. 1960-1961 (completed in May 1961).
2.	1,732 square feet.
3.	$36,229.
4.	Approximately $1,000.
5.	$40. (est.).



CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is veterans preference being observed in regard to the hiring of personnel for the winter works program at the Cape Breton highlands national park?


Arthur Laing: Yes, in conjunction with the preference which is given to heads of families who are ip need of employment and who live in close proximity to the park.



LEGAL AND STATUTORY HOLIDAYS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many "legal holidays" are there in the year and what are they?
2.	How many "statutory holidays" are there in the year and what are they?


Lionel Chevrier: The meaning of these expressions depends upon the context in which they are used. Legislative jurisdiction as to

holidays is divided between parliament and the provincial legislatures depending upon the subject matter and purpose of the legislation. Each may legislate with regard to holidays within its sphere of jurisdiction. Thus, the Interpretation Act of Canada defines holidays for the purposes of federal statutes and the interpretation act of Ontario defines holidays for the purposes of statutes of Ontario. Non-juridical days are set out in s. 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act. Days to be observed as holidays within the federal civil service are set out in s. 62 of the Civil Service Act. Days on which business may be transacted in provincial court and government offices depends upon provincial legislation.



BUTTER SURPLUS

Mr. Laiulippe: 1- What was the amount and the value of surplus butter in Canada for each of the last five years?
2.	How much of the surplus butter was disposed of during each of these five years through sales or gifts to underdeveloped countries?
3.	How much does the storage of this surplus butter cost?
4.	How many pounds of surplus butter are stored in the province of Quebec?
5.	What administrative costs are associated with this surplus butter?
Questions
2. What were the total operational costs of this military airport for the year 1962, including the pay and allowances of servicemen and salaries of the civilian personnel?
Answer: 1. $17,311,355.
2. Approximately $12,170,000.



BUTTER SUBSIDIES TO QUEBEC DAIRIES

Mr. Ricard: From the date of implementation of the policy guaranteeing a 12 cent subsidy per pound of butter designed to stimulate consumption of this commodity to March 31, 1963, what was the total amount of the subsidies granted by the government to the following dairy establishments: Theodore Jodoin, Saint-Theodore-d'Acton; Societe Cooperative Agricole, Saint-Hugues; Deslauriers & Frere Enrg. (Paul Jodoin), Saint-Liboire; Heliodore Parent, Sainte-Helene; Societe Cooperative Agricole, Saint-Simon-de-Ramsay; Robert-N. Chagnon, Saint-Do-minique; Theodore Gevry, Saint-Pie; Societe Cooperative Agricole, Saint-Germain-de-Grantham; Hector Sylvestre, Saint-Germain-de-Grantham; Alfred Bernard, La Presentation; Les Produits Laitiers Val Maska Inc., Saint-Damase; Charles Benoit & Irenee Lariviere (locataires), La Presentation; Les Produits Laitiers Mont-Saint-Hilaire Ltee, 3100 rue Saint-Prosper, Saint-Hyacinthe?


Harry William Hays: An amount of $867,246.36 was paid to the dairy establishments listed from the date of implementation of the policy to March 31, 1963.


Harry William Hays: 1. Agricultural stabilization
board holdings of butter and butter oil as of March 31:
Year	Butter
	lbs.
1959	49,611,273
1960	64,578,932
1961	71,761,333
1962	67,767,096
1963	90,181,798
2. None.
Butter Oil lbs. Nil Nil
22,645,984
78,032,698
81,707,747
Inventory
Value

32,391,822
42,256,010
66,962,738
112,311,843
129,172,971
3. Storage costs of butter purchased by the agricultural stabilization board were, by fiscal year:	1958-59,	$1,602,906.04;	1959-60,
$2,275,591.62; 1960-61, $2,863,277.79; 1961-62, $3,960,325.50; 1962-63, $4,422,361.24.
4.	As of October 31, 1963-there were 95,131,064 pounds of butter and 46,856,448 pounds of butter oil held in storage in the province of Quebec.
5.	Since officials of the dairy products division, Department of Agriculture, act as agents of the board for many of its operations, costs other than for storage and transportation cannot be segregated from departmental costs.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE., AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1. What has been the total capital investment in the Bagotville air force base since its establishment?
28902-5-299J



ASSISTANCE TO FRUIT GROWERS

Mr. Winch: 1.	During a fairly recent visit to the United Kingdom, did the Minister of Agriculture make any announcement relative to the government's plans to assist fruit growers?
2.	Is legislation to be introduced to (a) provide insurance to growers against losses to their crops (b) renew attempts to find markets for the growers of fresh fruit, and (c) provide fruit farmers with long term loans?
3.	When can the house expect these measures to be introduced by the government?


Harry William Hays: 1. No.
2.	(a) The provision of crop insurance is the responsibility of the provinces. The Crop Insurance Act authorizes federal assistance to approved provincial insurance programs.
(b)	The Departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce work closely with the fruit industry in the development of markets.
(c)	Fruit farmers are eligible for long term loans under the Farm Credit Act.
3.	Not applicable.
* OFFICE OF queen's PRINTER


Mr. Fisher: Will the personal office of the queen's publisher be established in the printing bureau and, if not (a) where is it to be located (b) are the offices being prepared (c) when did the preparations begin (d) when will the queen's publisher move there?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The creation of the post of queen's publisher and related changes are still under consideration.

Questions



CANADIANS IN UNITED STATES

Mr. Maiher: 1.	How many Canadians left Canada to live in the U.S.A. during 1962?
2.	Has the government an estimate of the number of Canadians and descendants now living in the U.S.A.?
Answer: 1. Immigrant aliens admitted to the United States, whose country of last permanent residence was Canada: Calendar year 1962, 47,579; Source: United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service.
2. (a) Number of Canadian-born living in United States: United States census, 1960, 952,500; (b) Number born in United States of Canadian parentage: United States census, 1960, 2,228,551.



COST AID TO MCINTYRE PORCUPINE MINES LTD.

Mr. Peters: 1.	How much money was paid in cost aid to the McIntyre Procupine Mines Ltd. in the first nine months of 1962?
2.	What was the increase in the amount paid in the same period in 1963?
3.	To what extent is this increase in cost aid attributed to the labour dispute at their Castle subsidiary?
4.	To what extent is the increase in cost aid attributed to the copper development at the Porcupine mine?
5.	If substantial losses had not been encountered, would an increase in cost aid have been anticipated?


William Moore Benidickson: 1. The advances paid under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd. for each of the first three quarterly periods of 1962 are as follows: 1. $260,900.64; 2. $322,616.77; 3. $279,249.32.
2.	The advances paid for the corresponding periods of 1963 are as follows: 1. $396,739.50; 2. $210,495.25; 3. None to date.
3.	The operation of the company's Castle mine, which is a silver producer, is not related to the determination of assistance payable with respect to gold produced from the McIntyre mine.
4.	The costs of producing copper are segregated and do not enter into the calculation of the amount of assistance payable on gold produced from the McIntyre mine.
5.	The amount of assistance payable is a function of the cost of production of gold and the quantity produced. The profit or loss position of the operator is not involved in the calculation.



URANIUM


Mr. Starr: Have any agreements or other arrangements been entered into since the 10th of April, 1963, between Canada and the United States for the sale by Canada and purchase by the United States, or by private interests in that country, of additional

amounts of Canadian uranium to the United States and, if so, on what date or dates, and what are the particulars thereof?
Answer: No.



FROZEN FOODS


Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Is the government aware that the Canada-U.K. freight conference has stated that it will be increasing the freight rates by 26 per cent, effective January 15, 1964, on certain frozen food products shipped from Canada to the United Kingdom?
2.	Has the government received any representations from the government of Prince Edward Island or from the frozen foods industry pointing out the detrimental effects such a freight increase would have on the frozen foods industry of Prince Edward Island?	_
3.	Has the government taken any action which would lessen this detrimental effect on this important export industry?
Answer: 1. The announced increase in the freight rates on frozen French fried potatoes ranges from 21 per cent to 35 per cent over the existing rate. On frozen vegetables, new rates range from unchanged to approximately 12 per cent over the existing rate.
2.	Yes.
3.	A meeting between representatives of the frozen food processors and the Canada-United Kingdom freight conference is to be held in Saint John. Officials of the federal government will attend and it is anticipated that officials of the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will also attend.



WHEAT AGREEMENTS

Mr. Horner (Acadia): On what dates were the last wheat agreements signed with each of the following countries: Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia and Russia?
Answer: 1. The Minister of Trade and Commerce signed on behalf of the government long term wheat agreements with the following countries on the dates indicated: Poland, November 5, 1963; Czechoslovakia, October 29, 1963; Russia, September 16, 1963; Bulgaria, October 8, 1963.
2. With regard to the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, the details of sales of wheat to these countries are a commercial matter between the Canadian wheat board and the country concerned, or an accredited export agent of the Canadian wheat board and an importer, and it is contrary to Canadian wheat board practice to reveal dates or any other information relating to such sales contracts.
3. With regard to China, the Canadian wheat board has negotiated two long term agreements with the China national cereals, oils and foodstuffs import and export corporation. These agreements are not firm sales contracts but rather a declaration of intent which

sets out procedures to facilitate the sale and purchase of wheat through subsequent individual sales contracts. The first long term agreement was dated April 22, 1961, and the second long term agreement was dated August 1, 1963.



MEETING BETWEEN PREMIER SMALLWOOD AND U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Were the good offices of the Canadian embassy at Washington utilized in arranging a recent meeting between the premier of Newfoundland and the attorney general of the United States?
2.	Were such good offices requested?
3.	Is the government aware that an affidavit has been filed with the United States securities commission declaring that at said interview the premier of Newfoundland attempted to halt a fraud case involving John Doyle of Canadian Javelin Limited?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: 1. The Canadian embassy was advised that Hon. J. R. Smallwood had arranged an interview with the attorney general of the United States in April and was requested to confirm with the attorney general's office that the premier of Newfoundland was proceeding to Washington for this interview.
2.	Answered by the above.
3.	The Canadian government is not aware that any such affidavit has been filed with the United States security and exchange commission.



AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Mr. Malheson: In the last year of record, stated in American dollars, what was the per capita contribution in official aid to the underdeveloped countries from the following members of the organization for economic co-operation and development, namely: (a) France (b) United States (c) Germany (d) United Kingdom (e) Canada?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Data in the following table relates to the calendar year 1962. Column one shows the magnitude of the net official flows to less developed countries, and includes all non-military grants in cash and in kind, as well as lending from official sources for maturities exceeding five years. The source of this information is the OECD report "Development Assistance Efforts and Policies." Population estimates for 1962 are derived from the OECD statistical bulletin.
U.S.	Thousands	$ U.S.Million	Population	Per CapitaFrance	996	47,573	20.93U.S.A.	3,606	188,062	19.17Germany (F.R.)	427	55,074	7.75U. K.	417	53,441	7.80Canada	50	18,767	2.66
Questions



EXPORT CREDITS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Malheson: 1.	Since the launching of Canada's export financing program in January 1961, what moneys have been loaned to what foreign countries (in the order of the volume of credit advanced) for the purchase of Canadian exports?
2.	What percentage of said moneys was advanced to assist in the sale of Canadian machinery or manufactured goods?
Answer: 1 and 2.
Total of Export Credits Insurance Corp. financing authorized by orders in council as of November 12, 1963; (% thereof relating to machinery or manufactured goods).
(i)	Argentina	$15,334,000 (100%)(ii)	Brazil	$11,035,750 (100%)(iii) Ceylon	$10,800,000 (86.2%)(iv)	Chile	$19,900,000 (80.4%)(v)	Israel	$2,300,000 (100%)(vi)	Liberia	$1,616,719 (100%)(vii)	Mexico	$56,692,937 (100%)(viii)	Pakistan	$12,351,000 (86.2%)
Total moneys disbursed by Export Credits Insurance Corp. in respect of export transactions as of November 12, 1963; (% thereof relating to machinery or manufactured goods).
(i) Argentina	$12,284,352 (100%)
(ii) Brazil	$2,557,800 (100%)
(iii) Ceylon	$450,000 (0%)
(iv) Chile	$11,467,328 (87.7%)
(v) Israel	Nil
(vi) Liberia	$280,907 (100%)
(vii) Mexico	$23,826,898 (100%)
(viii) Pakistan	$4,663,000 (90.8%)



BROADCASTING


Mr. Valade: What are the real names of all performers, commentators, newspapermen, writers, song writers, and others who received fees from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for their services under pen or stage names on television or radio from the beginning of 1955 to date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be questioned whether the expenditure required to produce an answer to this question could be justified

Orders for Returns
by any public interest which would be served, but any question relating to specific persons would be submitted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a reply.



CHRYSLER COMPANY TENDER FOR STAKE TRUCKS

Mr. Lambert: 1.	With reference to the replies to questions 1,500 to 1,556, what were the tender's specifications with respect to rear axle and rear springs of the vehicles the subject matter of the tender call?
2.	In what way did the vehicles offered by the lowest tenderer not meet with these specifications, and what was the nature of the capacity deficiencies in the rear axle and rear springs of the vehicles offered by the said tenderer?
3.	Did the vehicles offered by any of the other unsuccessful tenderers not meet the said specifications or capacity requirements, and in what way?
Answer: 1. It was a requirement of the specification that no axle or spring should be loaded greater than its rated load when the vehicle was carrying a payload of 8,000 pounds evenly distributed over the body floor.
2 (a) The capacity of the rear axle and rear springs of the vehicles offered by the lowest tenderer was not sufficient to satisfy this requirement of the specification, (b) The capacity of the rear axle was deficient by approximately 140 pounds. The capacity of the rear springs was deficient by approximately 640 pounds.
3. The capacity of the rear axles and springs of the vehicles offered by all other tenderers was sufficient to meet the requirements of the specification.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Douglas: What was the establishment by ranks and by services of navy headquarters, army headquarters, and air force headquarters on January 1, 1939, January 1, 1945, January 1, 1963, October 1, 1963, and what was the total strength, by services, of the armed forces on those dates?
Return tabled.


SERVICE CONTRACTS, CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What service contracts have been awarded for Camp Gagetown since April 1, 1963?
2.	Who submitted the tenders and what was the amount of each tender?
Return tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you call notices of motions for production of papers I wonder whether I could have the consent of the house to revert to motions to table a couple of documents that have been requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, before we leave questions may I inquire with regard to question No. 1,164 appearing in my name under date of September 30. As I require up to date information and have not received an answer to this question yet, may I now change the date from September 30 to October 30?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before consent is given to the minister I should like to raise a question of privilege with regard to one of the starred questions. If you would like me to do so now I will, or I am prepared to wait until we have finished with matters under motions. It is immaterial. My question of privilege involves starred question No. 1,349 in my name and starred question No. 1,316 in the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur, which question was answered today.
My question, No. 1,349, was filed a month ago tomorrow and it is a simple one. It reads:
What is to be site of the Canadian world exhibition?
The second part of the question asks when the decision was made to select this site, who made it and by what authority. So far no answer has been given to this question. Today the parliamentary secretary answered the question of the hon. member for Port Arthur, which reads in part as follows:
In the recent announcements by the Minister of Public Works that arrangements are completed for the construction plans for the access to the world's fair site-
And so on. Reference is made there to a site. Then the hon. member proceeds to elaborate on what he wants to find out. I submit it is within the knowledge of the minister what is to be the site of the Canadian world exhibition, and I cannot possibly understand his reluctance to answer such a simple, straightforward question, unless it is that the site for the Canadian world exhibition has been chosen contrary to the restriction placed in the statute setting up the Canadian world exhibition, and the minister and the government are embarrassed about answering this particular question.


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that unfortunately this question has been overlooked. At the first opportunity it will be answered with the greatest of pleasure.


Frank Howard: Monday?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Any time.


Frank Howard: Right now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might now renew my request to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling two orders for returns requested on several

occasions by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for his enlightenment. I apologize for being unable to table the third return, but the government is awaiting the consent of the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which is being urgently sought.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Orlikow):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence received since January 1, 1963 by the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Justice from organizations or individuals dealing with the problem of security procedures and investigations and the replies to same.
Lionel Chevrier: The motion is accepted subject to the usual reservations with regard to correspondence between ministers of the crown and interdepartmental correspondence and communications marked "personal and confidential". It is subject also to a reservation with regard to letters from or about named persons involved in any security investigation, since those communications must be regarded as confidential and it would not be in the public interest to disclose them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Caoueile:
That an order of the house do issue for a return of the complete results of the general election in Canada on April 8, 1963, showing, for each constituency by provinces, the total votes cast for each candidate.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I owe the house an apology for the statement I made in respect to this motion when it came up the last time. I thought I was giving a completely accurate statement, and I was correct in saying that the information sought has to be printed, but under the statutes it does not have to be tabled. I was therefore quite wrong in saying the house would be ridiculous in passing this motion. I apologize for having done so, and I think the motion should pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 156-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Peters):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and replies thereto since January 1, 1961, between the McIntyre Porcupine Mines, Ltd., and the government of Canada or any of its departments, concerning matters related to cost aid paid under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motions for Papers
William Moore Benidickson: This motion is accepted, subject to the usual reservations in respect of any correspondence that might be marked "personal" or "confidential".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 158-Mr. Choquette:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the minister or any of the officials of the Department of Public Works in connection with all works carried out under the jurisdiction of the department in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm since April 1, 1958.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We have no objection to accepting this motion. On the other hand, it is understood that personal and confidential correspondence is privileged material for the reasons I outlined in a similar case recently.
I do not think that I should table personal and confidential correspondence.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, in this connection I can say, in the first place, that a defeated candidate and a member should not be confused. Another point also, it rests with the minister to take his responsibilities and not with me.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion is not debatable. If hon. members desire it can be transferred for debate.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would be pleased if that motion was transferred for debate.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat. There is no debate on this motion. The motion is transferred for debate.



AGREEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF STEWART-CASSIAR ROAD

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia and any amendments thereto relating to the construction of the Stewart-Cassiar road.
Mr.Laing: This is an agreement signed under the roads to resources program, and is tabled herewith.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him what is going on in the United Nations with respect to the unresolved Palestine-Arab refugee problem. What discussions are taking place, and what advance has been made toward a solution of this problem?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows from his acquaintance with this problem, it is one that has been with us for some time. This does not mean that there is not the fullest appreciation of its seriousness. The matter continues to be the subject of discussion among countries concerned and among those countries which are assisting in the maintenance of the refugees. Canada is one of these countries. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that discussions are going on both here and at the United Nations. Beyond this I can say nothing more at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister might be able to enlighten the house and let us know whether there is any possibility now, in view of the discussions taking place at this very moment, of a breakthrough in regard to a problem that has continued for some 15 years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish I were in a position to say there were some such indications, but I am not in a position to indicate that there is a breakthrough.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. It arises out of press reports in all the newspapers this morning that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. are going to back the S.I.U. in their fight against the trusteeship in Canada and, in effect, support Mr. Hal Banks. I am wondering whether the minister could inform the house as to what action this labour organization in the United States intends to take, and whether there have been negotiations or consultations with the United States government to protect Canadian ships in United States ports.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no report to make on the activities of a trade union meeting in the United States. I have read, as has my hon. friend, press reports with respect to the attitude that has been expressed there on this particular matter. Beyond that I have nothing to say, except that the situation in United States ports with respect to the harassment of Canadian shipping has eased considerably. Naturally the Secretary of State for External Affairs is keeping in close touch with the situation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his assertion in Windsor last week to the effect that he has been in constant touch with the United States state and labour departments regarding the boycotting of Canadian ships, and in view of the statement made by Mr. John W. Leslie, the United States deputy assistant secretary of labour, who said they had no knowledge of such consultations or of any planned action, I wonder whether the minister could advise the house what is the true situation in this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been directed to the statement mentioned by the hon. member. I had discussions on this matter yesterday in Ottawa with our ambassador to Washington, and this statement was not mentioned. However, I will look into the matter further.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL PREPARATIONS FOR COMING CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Will the minister assist the next federal-provincial conference in Ottawa at the end of November and will he be ready to face the requirements of the province of Quebec regarding new fiscal arrangements; and are the advisers of his department-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: -getting ready for these requirements?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think all I can say in reply to that question is that the government is preparing very assiduously for the forthcoming conference which, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we hope and we expect will be a great success.

I would, while I am on my leet, like to reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Labelle-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question that is supplementary to the question I just asked. Will the minister state at this point the actual policy of the government in the next federal-provincial conference?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Why?



REPORTED AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS FROM FEDERAL TREASURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may now answer the question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard). According to the press reports, Premier Bennett is alleged to have stated that these equalization payments are in fact subsidies. He went on, I think, to say that only Ontario and British Columbia contribute more than they get back from the federal government. The estimated equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year 1963-64 are as follows: Alberta, $1,546,000; British Columbia, nil; Manitoba, $12,033,000; New Brunswick, $16,302,000; Newfoundland, $14,521,000; Nova Scotia, $19,422,000; Ontario, nil; Prince Edward Island, $3,147,000; Quebec, $69,539,000; Saskatchewan, $23,174,000.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I hope he will excuse my ignorance. He said a while ago that Quebec received $69 million in grants. Now, I refer to the statement by Mr. Bennett that Quebec had received $69 million more than it had paid into the federal treasury. Would this mean that Quebec received $69 million more than all the taxes paid to the federal government?
Does the minister understand my question correctly?
Mr. Bennett said that Quebec received $69 million more than what it paid into the federal treasury. Is that correct?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the reports of what Mr. Bennett said in that way. The total taxes collected from citizens of Quebec by the federal government would certainly exceed $69 million.
Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Could he tell the house whether his department intends to hold an investigation in order to find out who is telling the truth, Mr. Bennett, premier of British Columbia, who said that Quebec receives $69 million from the federal government or the Creditiste hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), who claims that Quebec pays $640 million more than what it receives from the federal government?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Thursday the hon. member for Red Deer directed a question to the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with regard to the two Canadians held in Cuba. I wonder whether the minister would like to make a more complete statement at this time with regard to these two gentlemen.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government takes a serious view of the situation of these two prisoners. Later this afternoon I hope to see the Cuban ambassador, and our ambassador in Havana is endeavouring to see the Cuban foreign minister this afternoon. We are anxious to know the nature of the charges. We are anxious to make sure that the trial takes place under procedures that will command the belief that full justice will be accorded the prisoners. Beyond this I do not think it is desirable for me to say anything further at this time.


PAKISTAN-CANADIAN AID IN IMPROVEMENT OF DEFENCE FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a question I asked the Prime Minister two or three days ago, on which he said he would get further information. Has the Prime Minister any further information to give the house about whether the government of Canada is giving assistance to the improvement of the defence forces of Pakistan?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to deal with this question, which I think was raised by the hon. gentleman on November 8. The government of Pakistan has not informed the Canadian government of any request it wishes to make of Canada in this regard, and accordingly no provision has been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding may I say to the hon. member for Kootenay West that there has been no request for military assistance. The only request which has been made was for the provision by Canada of a technical expert to assist the Pakistani government in the matter of its science research program.


SHIPBUILDING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has a statement to make to the house or whether he could report to the house on the talks he and other members of the cabinet had yesterday with a delegation of shipyard workers from the province of Quebec who came to Ottawa to protest the cancellation by the government of the frigate program.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have no prepared statement to make on the subject, but I am glad to advise the house that I met with the delegation of about 40 persons representing the shipbuilding yards in the province of Quebec. I discussed with them rather fully the shipbuilding program, and particularly the shipbuilding program in relation to prospective employment in the yards, that is to say the time when certain shipbuilding contracts would go to tender and when the construction would take place in terms of employment in the yards.
It was quite a thorough, and at least for my part, satisfactory discussion with these workers.


Léon Balcer: As a supplementary question I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he indicated to the delegation the building of any new ships for the Department of Transport which were not already included in the estimates for 1962-63 or 1963-64.


George James McIlraith: I used as a basis for discussion the statement I made in the house, and we discussed in particular the program for

departmental ships disclosed in that statement. The different dates were indicated in the statement, and I pointed out the expected time of tender calls. I also made reference to some commercial vessels, construction of which I expect will be started very shortly. I should add, however, that with respect to these commercial vessels the government has no direct or immediate control over them when they go to tender.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether his department, under this government, is going to institute a program of shipbuilding in this country. To clarify the situation, I mean one which has not been initiated and already announced by the previous government.


George James McIlraith: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, the government has been continuing the shipbuilding subsidy program initiated by the former government. The government has sought to clarify the policy and has regularized the provision of funds to meet the commitments and has brought about an orderly program, but substantially it is following the subsidy program laid down by the former government. On that point, when any changes of policy are to be made they will of course be announced in the usual way.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. Am I to understand from the minister that there is no new program instituted by this government?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his institution yesterday of a policy of public confession of his shortcomings, would he provide a forum for true confessions to the house by some of his colleagues?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the preamble to that question indicates that no reply is expected.


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he give us the names of the 14 members on the government side who have signed a petition asking the government to apply Social Credit theories, as the hon. member for Red

Inquiries of the Ministry Deer (Mr. Thompson) is reported to have said such form I approved his suggestion that the in New Westminster, British Columbia?	council be called.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the list may well have been mythical. Therefore I could not give the names on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Maybe it is some of those who voted for debt free money in October.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the Quebec government requested another meeting with the minister to consider the possibility of transferring the jurisdiction over the Eskimos of new Quebec to the government of the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Hon. Rene Levesque suggesting we meet with him to discuss the setting out of some basis for discussions at a meeting to be held on November 19.


EMERGENCY MEETING OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister able to confirm reports that all members of the Northwest Territories council have been summoned to Ottawa for a special emergency meeting beginning Monday and, if so, can he give the house any further information?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to presume to interfere with the duties of the Northwest Territories council. However, in the light of the probability that the legislation that is before us, which would extend their tenure of office, may not pass the house in time for them to continue, the commissioner for the Northwest Territories suggested to me that he would feel much happier with a meeting of the council in Ottawa, to arrange, among other things, for supply of the necessary services beyond the date of expiry of the powers of the council. When this was represented to me in


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister inform the house whether he is aware of the treatment which has befallen for some time the employees of the Val Cartier arsenals, near Quebec city?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question of the hon. member as notice.


TOBACCO-INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SALE TO JAPAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the Japanese tobacco monopoly decided to purchase a large quantity of Canadian tobacco and, if so, what is the amount of money involved?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO SALES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister advise the house concerning the proposed sale of butter or butter oil to Great Britain and other countries?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I think as of the present moment we have been able to sell something in the neighbourhood of 21 million pounds of butter and butter oil. This is still being offered and there is considerable interest.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the Department of

Inquiries of the Ministry Fisheries investigating the large losses suffered by fishermen along the coast of Halifax county, and elsewhere in Nova Scotia, as a result of damage to their equipment by hurricane Ginny?
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of
Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that a survey is being made by officials of my department in order to determine the extent of the damage done to fishing boats and gear by hurricane Ginny in the area mentioned.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister inform the house what progress the committee on juvenile delinquency is making in his department?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have received a number of reports and representations having to do with the amendment of the act. They are under consideration and I trust it will be possible, in the not too distant future, to bring in legislation to that effect.



HAL BANKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did Hal C. Banks have leave of a competent court to leave the jurisdiction and go to the U.S.A. when he was on bail in reference to a pending indictable offence?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. It has been asked before but it has more urgency now because of an interprovincial and intercity row that seems to be brooding. When can he tell us 
the decision by T.C.A. regarding the plane that they are going to purchase, and what the government's policy is with regard to T.C.A.'s wish?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should hope to be able to satisfy the hon. gentleman very soon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he is responsible for the information that has been released and that has been accepted across the country, that T.C.A. has asked for and wishes to purchase the DC-9?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid in this instance I have been responsible for none of the information that has appeared in the press on the subject.



MEMBERSHIP OF CANADIAN REFINERIES IN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a matter arising from last night's debate on the grievance. A statement was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to the effect that three different sugar refineries had been fined $75,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce later stated that the international sugar council of New York had been giving reports as to the present sugar situation. Are the three different Canadian refineries which were mentioned yesterday also members of this international council?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS IN LONG TERM AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement last evening concerning the possibility of Canada entering into long term sugar agreements, can the minister assure the house that the interests of our sugar beet producers and those connected with these producers will be adequately protected?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Does he propose to recommend abolishing tolls on the Champlain bridge, in Montreal, as it was promised during the Liberal election campaign?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the government will be made known in due course.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is a supplementary question following the minister's answer a moment ago.
I am asking the minister whether he could not assure the house that his government intends to consider the question of abolishing tolls on the Champlain bridge before the next session, considering the importance of giving the city of Montreal the necessary bypass roads during the work carried out on St. Helen's island for the world exhibition, as the situation is creating rather serious bottlenecks.
I am asking the minister whether he could give the assurance to the house that the matter will be considered before the next session.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I directed a question to the Minister of Transport, and then the Secretary of State for External Affairs got up to answer a previous question. I should like the Minister of Transport to reply to my question, which was very simple.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes or no.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State in his capacity as house leader. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he could make an effort to have the starred questions on the order paper
Income Tax Act
answered as quickly as possible; there are quite a number there. I believe the intention of a starred question is that members can get a fairly quick answer to a reasonably simple question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to do so, sir. I notice there is one dated October 9, and that does seem a rather long time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government to extend the power of the Canadian board of grain commissioners from the western provinces to the eastern provinces, without having it stopping at the lakehead?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not under my jurisdiction.


Raymond Langlois: Then would the Minister of Agriculture tell me whose department it is under? I will direct my question then to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the third reading of Bill No. C-95, to amend the Income Tax Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at length on this question. The official opposition has taken the strongest exception to the manner of approach to United States investment in Canada. We have stated that the tax on dividends paid by corporations not having a degree of Canadian ownership does not meet the situation, and in its present form it is detrimental to investment in our country. However, having opposed these particular sections of the Income Tax Act and the other parties having generally given them support, there is no purpose in going over the ground again.
This is the last stage in the budget, a matter which goes back many months. It was a budget that was jerry built and has not stood up. After the budget was introduced there was a general demand for the removal of the Minister of Finance, but the government decided to get out of the budget practically completely and hold on to the minister. On the basis of what remains of the budget one can understand the description that was

Income Tax Act
given to the Canadian economy; "a rudderless mess". There was the budget of a few months ago. The promises which were made have not been carried out. My mind goes back to 1961 when the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) set out a financial and fiscal plan for Canada which was to be the salvation of the finances of this nation. He proposed four fiscal measures. The first of these was a temporary reduction in the rate of income tax. That was the promise made by the Liberal party in 1961. Instead of any reduction, the Canadian people today are being taxed approximately $250 million more than was the case when the present government came into office. Hon. gentlemen opposite said they would amend the Income Tax Act in this regard. They have done nothing to carry out this undertaking and their failure to do so cannot be explained on the ground that there is a deficit this year. When the undertaking was made in 1961 there was also a deficit, and the attitude then of the Liberal party was that there would be a reduction of income tax.
The second undertaking was that they would proceed to increase vocational training assistance. We have no quarrel with that, because it formed part of our own program. I believe, in this connection, the government should give consideration to encouraging adults to continue their education in parttime or night classes by allowing them to deduct tuition costs and expenses under the income tax. There are many thousands across Canada who today are attending night schools and there are many more who would attend if encouragement were given. Indeed, I think one of our primary purposes must be to expand and enlarge the vocational training plan which we brought into effect, so as to ensure that those who are middle aged and who wish to continue their education may have an opportunity to do so. At the same time, those who are younger in years and who desire to further their education by attending night schools should be entitled to the same deduction as if they were attending day schools.
The next proposal was a renewal program to be broadened and increased in the field of urban development. Finally, as part of the long term policy of the Liberal party, there was the medical health plan. This was the program of 1961 and 1962.
If we are to encourage the expansion of our country-and, at that time, the prime minister of the day said this was a necessary course to take-then tax cuts are necessary. But in place of carrying out the undertaking which was then given, the government has added extra burdens upon the people. In particular, I refer to the 11 per cent sales tax on building

materials and production machinery, a tax which should never have been imposed. Today, the rate of 4 per cent is in effect, and will be to the end of this fiscal year. I think there should be an immediate announcement made that the government will not press for the increase but will freeze the tax at the present rate. To sum up, the promises of 1961 in connection with income tax have followed the course of so many other promises which were made: they have not been carried into effect. Indeed, as far as taxation is concerned, instead of a reduction there has been a marked increase.
This is the background material. It indicates that the government has failed in the budget, or in what remains of the budget, to carry out the undertakings which were given. Having asked for reductions in taxation to meet the situation that exists in our country, following the lead of the United States in that regard in the message to congress by the President, I now come to one matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the house, and I intend to confine my remarks to it. It has to do with the subamendment which was accepted by the government last night. Its acceptance indicated a change of attitude on the part of the government. We had, from time to time, been demanding that there should be full consultation concerning all those matters which fall within the provincial arena. That has not been the attitude taken by the government, or the course which it has followed. The motion last evening was in the following terms:
That this house urges the government to carry out more fully the spirit of co-operative federalism and to consult with the provinces before announcing or undertaking programs which fall to any extent within provincial jurisdiction.
I do not intend to go into the circumstances surrounding the somersault last evening or the trickiness of the government's move. I shall accept it not as a tricky move designed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). I intend to regard it as a conversion. I am going to regard it as a change of attitude, and I think that is the fairest interpretation one could place on it. A review took place last evening of previous occasions when a similar course was followed, but there never was an occasion in Canadian history when a government, realizing it was facing a vote of want of confidence, decided, because it feared the result, to accept an amending motion. It simply means that from now on, however an amendment of non-confidence is moved, the government can say: we have more confidence than we think the opposition would have, and this being the case we are prepared to support the amendment in order to save ourselves.

They will never hear the last of their vote last evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. Maybe we shall never hear the last of it, but perhaps we should hear about it when it is in order to refer to it. The debate now is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for the third reading of the income tax bill. The prime minister is now seeking-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that was worth doing, to give the ex-prime minister the first moment of real pleasure he has had since he left that office. For the last few minutes the former prime minister has been seeking to say all those things he was not bright enough to think of in the debate last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no point of order in what is being said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are not the Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is going to raise a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. My point of order is that it is contrary to the rules of the house to revive a debate on a question that has been settled. This question was settled not by one vote but two votes last night, in one of which the hon. gentleman voted one way and then on the identical motion voted the opposite way.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has no right under the rules to take up the time of the house today in reviving that debate when we should be debating the income tax bill, and I suggest, sir, that the right hon. gentleman, like the rest of us, be asked to abide by the rules of the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on this point of order. I have listened very attentively to the point of order raised. In addition to bringing up a point of order the Secretary of State, as usual, is debasing parliament, bringing in partisanship and doing more damage to the House of Commons than anyone else in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker,-
Income Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -the Secretary of State is quite correct. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order under standing order 35.


Mr. Ricard:: The situation is becoming darker and darker now.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I will read the relevant citation. Citation 149 in Beauchesne, fourth edition, reads as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:-
(k) reflect upon the past acts and proceedings of the house.
After all, Mr. Speaker, it was only last night that this matter was discussed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point of order raised by the Secretary of State, may I say I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows that he should limit himself as much as possible to what is contained in the bill which is now before the house for third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more in agreement with you. I point out that the Secretary of State chose a phony point of order in order to make statements that are completely without foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This shows that the guilty conscience for last night's damage to parliament rests with him and that he feels a sense of deep guilt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What I was trying to do in a perfectly unprovocative way was to lead up from last night's conversion. I want to know whether or not it is just one of those one-night conversions or whether it is going to be reasonably permanent-because there are two kinds, those that last while the hallelujah chorus is being sung-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask Alvin.


John George Diefenbaker: -and those that last while there is fear that condemnation is about to come. These deathbed repentances do not often last long. However, I am taking it for granted that last night's was not a deathbed repentance, that it was more than a piece of trickery and that it actually means a change in the attitude of the government.
Believing that, I am going to give the opportunity to the members of the government and its followers to support an amendment I am about to move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you jealous?

Income Tax Act


John George Diefenbaker: I hasten at once to say that I do not want the government to be frightened, and while we will not consider the amendment as a vote of non-confidence, we will also look upon it as a vote of confidence on the part of members supporting the government, as in the vote they gave last evening.
I am referring particularly to the question of designated depressed areas. For a long period of time various members of the official opposition, the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel), the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stenson), the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), have pressed on the government the necessity of there being consultation with the provinces before there is designation of a particular area or municipality as a designated area. In this regard I am going to look for support from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I refer him to his speech of November 6 as found on page 4474 of Hansard in which he stated in effect that there should be consultation. He said:
Certainly you have the provincial government to which these local governments are responsible. How much more effective it would be if these governments were consulted, if they were allowed to express their opinions on this.
I am in favour of this amendment for two reasons, and one is that the consultation aspect of government must be continually protected and preserved. It is only in this way we can get the full co-operation not only of local governments but also of people in industries and commercial enterprises in these communities. This applies even to the provincial governments because, after all, our municipalities are responsible to them.
The hon. member often speaks of the need to be consistent. I was interested today, Mr. Speaker, when somebody asked who were the 14 Liberal members of whom he spoke who had signed a petition on behalf of Social Credit. I could only decide that some of those that voted for debt free money in November, 1961, took their vote at that time seriously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 1962.


John George Diefenbaker: But I am asking now for the support of this hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) also made a very clear and definite statement in this regard. As found on page 4475 of Hansard for November 6, he said:
-if the hon. member who introduced this amendment-
He is referring to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Wellington South.

-would replace the word "municipality" by the word "province", then the amendment would be not only acceptable but desirable. It would follow that the federal government would no longer have to deal with the municipalities but only with certain provincial governments. That would relieve the federal government of extra work, difficulties and problems.
Then, I call my next witness, the present Prime Minister who, while he was leader of the opposition, spoke on this subject on March 20, 1961. At that time he said there should be a six point program for these areas of chronic and serious unemployment. I quote from page 3137 of Hansard for that date:
An area rehabilitation agency should be set up within the federal government to implement in co-operation with provincial and local authorities, an over-all program of economic assistance to the depressed areas of our country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement of policy made by the present Prime Minister on March 20, 1961, coupled with the views expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), as well as the unanimity last night on the part of government members concerning the need for consultation, makes one begin to see that today, on third reading of this measure, we are faced with the need for taking the first step along the line of full consultation with the municipalities through the medium of these provinces. This was the attitude taken by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) when he was minister of labour. He discussed these matters. He was able to bring in a winter works program which was operative because he had co-operation.
Now, sir, there have been areas that have been designated that have not been too well pleased with the designation. Brantford is one such place. I understand, from the explanation that was given, how it came to be chosen, but it is also well to remember that the mayor said he could not understand it. Apparently he lost sight of the fact that one of the ministers of the government, the Hon. Senator Macdonald, represented that area.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: True.


John George Diefenbaker: This is just a circumstance. I do not know why anyone should be disturbed over that. The fact is he was.
I want to speak now of the change that has taken place in the thinking of hon. members opposite. When we were asking for consultation when this measure was introduced to designate areas, the answer we received was in the negative. On October 2, as recorded on page 3125 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Labour a question. If I leave out the unnecessary words it was in effect; before a

municipal area is designated as a distressed area in order to qualify, are the officials of the municipality consulted? The answer by the Minister of Labour, in part, was as follows:
We felt as a government that, given the opportunity, we ought to take responsibility, as we said we would do, for areas which ought to be given special assistance, not to do as the former government did and ask the municipality to come forward and make an application.
So, they went ahead and decided that there would be no consultation with the provinces. We asked for this, and yet no municipality was given the opportunity. We consulted with the municipality, but this government decided not to do so. This has been one of the major shortcomings in this particular piece of legislation up to this moment.
Yesterday the principle was accepted, finally, absolutely and unanimously in this house. The motion was not regarded as in the nature of a non-confidence motion. The principle of the fullest consultation was accepted, it being essential where there is any interest of the province or municipality, before and not after decisions are taken. In this way the support of these bodies would be enlisted, and without that support, as the hon. member for Ontario has said, it will be very difficult to make this program succeed. We have tried over and over again to get the government to accept the idea of consultation, not to designate an area until that area has been consulted, through the medium of the provinces if you will. The answer in every case has been that it is unnecessary.
Last evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) joined with those sitting around him, all the ministers of the cabinet, in accepting the principle we have been advocating. In other words, the principle is now accepted by the government. Having been accepted, what could be more reasonable than that an opportunity be now given so that the government and its members may, within 20 hours after this great declaration of change on the part of the government, vote on the very thing for which they voted last evening in that subamendment which they accepted. I am sure that this idea will have a widespread appeal to the members supporting the government. I make it very clear, and I do not want any misunderstanding, that this is not a vote of non-confidence that I am now moving. This is simply a means of giving to the government the opportunity to carry out that for which they voted last night, that which they condemned for several months as unnecessary when the hon. gentleman to whom I have referred over and over again pressed for the need for consultation with the municipality.
Income Tax Act
I want to give the fullest opportunity not to have directions given by the governor in council under the Department of Industry Act without consultation. Section 9 of that act reads:
The governor in council may designate as a designated area for the purposes of this act any district or locality in Canada that is determined to require special measures to permit economic development or industrial adjustment by reason of the exceptional nature or degree of unemployment in that area.
The bill before us is one that contains no reference whatever to consultation. We have tried from the very beginning of this debate to bring about amendments, but they have been defeated. Let the past bury its dead. The members of the government voted against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) and other amendments that were proposed in this connection. However, they did so b.c., that is, before conversion which took place on November 12. I am asking today the opportunity for those who stood up last evening and supported this great principle, which is a necessary principle for confederation, to give this assurance that there shall be no abrogation of provincial jurisdiction.
Now I ask, is it not proper and appropriate, with the change just behind them, with the warmth of their sudden conversion still on their cheeks, that they now have the right, as they should have, to carry out the great and abiding principle of confederation that received unanimous support in this house last night. It just shows that out of evil may come good; out of fear may come principle; out of victory has come survival. Now, sir, so that the house will know what the amendment is, I will read it. I will make some further references to it, if I may, later on. This amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin), and if I may interpolate here, I am sure the house as a whole will be glad to see him back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He has been seriously ill for months and is back in the house today. His heart must be warmed by the kindliness of the reception of all hon. members in all parts of the house. That is one thing about the House of Commons: whatever our division and however strong and bitter sometimes our disagreements, it is surprising the degree of camaraderie that prevails, without which democracy could not be preserved under the parliamentary system. I thank hon. members opposite for their reception to the return of this member to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Income Tax Act


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, I would now return to the amendment, which is:
That this bill be not now read the third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with authority to add after paragraph 71A, subsection 1(b) the following words; that is to say;
"providing that the municipal authorities with jurisdiction over the area in question, through their respective provincial governments, have requested the governor in council to have such area so designated".
If I may proceed before Your Honour places it before the house, I would again emphasize that this will in no way be construed as a vote of non-confidence. I want to re-emphasize that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I go further than was gone last evening in that connection, because I know the avidity with which they will accept the amendment, which will translate into actuality the theories of last night. As a result of the change made, the reading of the section would then be:
"designated area" has the meaning given to that expression by the Department of Industry Act, providing that the municipal authorities with jurisdiction over the area in question, through their respective provincial governments, have requested the governor in council to have such area so designated.
1 do not want to say any more. It is a great opportunity for parliament to speak. There is no question at all of there being any lack of confidence and the government accepting this amendment. The acceptance of it will be exhibit A for all time to come as to the integrity with which the government members last night accepted with such avidity the subamendment.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, you may wish a little time to decide whether this amendment is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: But perhaps while you are considering that question, if I am permitted to make a few remarks I would certainly like to join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in welcoming back to the house the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) who has many friends on both sides of the chamber. I trust that in view of the rather wide range of matters touched on in the extensive remarks of the Leader of the Opposition I may have a little more licence than usual in what I have to say to begin with, before I get down to the particular matter on which the Leader of the Opposition concentrated at the end of his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) questioned whether the proposed amendment was in order, I feel that before the debate is allowed to go any further, it would be advisable for you to rule whether the amendment is in order or not.
The same problem arose recently in the house and I think the Speaker gave his ruling before allowing the debate to continue. [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does Your Honour wish to hear any argument on the question as to whether the amendment is in order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) or any other hon. member would like to make submissions for the guidance and enlightenment of the Chair on the question of the point of order, I should certainly be pleased to hear such representations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amendment seems to be of a very technical character. It reads:
That this bill be not now read the third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with authority to add after paragraph 71A-
I cannot find, in a hasty perusal of the bill, anything that could properly be regarded as paragraph 71A of this bill. By "paragraph" one assumes "clause" is meant, and the bill appears to have 28 clauses.
It is true that clause 16 contains an amendment to section 71A of the act, which is not quite the same thing, but even when you look inside it, it says in section 71A (l)(b) the following words shall be added:
-for which the business is certified to be a new manufacturing or processing business carried on in a designated area.
It does not seem to me if you read the words, "Providing that the municipal authorities with jurisdiction over the area in question," that these would make much sense in relation to the rest of the bill because, as I understand it, the designated areas are not municipalities at all. They are areas covered by employment offices. This seems to be importing something entirely new into the matter, and something that is foreign to the bill itself. Therefore it would make nonsense of the bill. But these are technical objections that I felt ought to be considered, since the point was raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think there is no doubt whatever about the propriety of the amendment, and I refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 415:

When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular. The motion for third reading is debatable under S.O. 32.
There is no limitation whatever on the purposes for which the bill may be recommitted. It can be recommitted for amendment in any particular, and I think this type of amendment has been used many times.
I cannot understand why the Secretary of State would try to put forward any suggestion that there is anything out of order about the amendment. So far as the paragraphs are concerned, there seems to be no particular difficulty involved in paragraph 71A (l)(b), because it is an addition to the wording which is expressed in that clause. I cannot see how there can be any objection to the form of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to raise is not so much as to whether or not the amendment is in order but rather as to whether or not it is in good form, whether or not it will achieve the purpose that the Leader of the Opposition has in mind.
As I look through clause 16 of the bill, which writes in a new section 71A, I find the words "designated area" appearing in five or six different places, yet the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition would put in this qualification about a request from the provinces with respect to the phrase "designated area" in only one of these places.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the definition of "designated area."


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, designated area.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition has not taken the trouble to read the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is usual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the amendment which came to me from the Leader of the Opposition, and he wants to add something after subclause (1) (b). That subclause reads:
-for which the business is certified to be a new manufacturing or processing business carried on in a designated area.
A little later on, in subparagraph (2) (b) there is a definition of "designated area," and I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition's homework leaves something to be desired.
Not only are there these two places in the clause where the phrase "designated area" appears, but it appears again over on page 14 and again on page 15, and all these have to do with designated areas. It seems to me that if
Income Tax Act
he wants to apply it to the whole clause he should put it in a better place than he proposes.
One of the requirements of an amendment is that it makes sense. I do not think this makes sense in the form in which it has been presented to us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The propriety of this amendment can be reduced to the fact that if there is no place to put it, then if you go back to consider Bill C-95 it would be out of order since there is no section 71. It seems to me it is only a technical error, but the Leader of the Opposition will have to put it together a little better so that we understand what it means.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Put it in the garbage can, where it belongs.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In connection with the objection that has been raised, certainly if one looks at the bill under clause 71A(l)(b) which appears at the top of page 13, a designated area is there described. Now, if someone wants to raise an objection it would be perfectly logical to put it in exactly where it has been put in.
I think the intention was that it should go into paragraph (2) (b) under the definition of a designated area, and to that extent, if the house agreed, it could be changed to paragraph (2) (b).


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I hear some objection from across the way, so it can be left exactly where it is because the words "designated area" appear there, and this particular amendment will qualify those words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have one point to raise with respect to the regularity of the amendment itself. I submit that the amendment is clearly beyond the scope of the bill before the house because it attempts to alter the method of designating these particular areas to be eligible for assistance.
The Department of Industry Act was passed by this house, in which the method for designation was set forth, and that act established a way by which these designations could be made. If there are additional proposals as to how the areas should be designated, through municipal and provincial participation, then it is within the scope of that particular act that the effort ought to be made.
In the particular bill before us we do have the appearance of the expression "designated area," but it is not open to us, under the scope of this bill, to determine the method by which these areas can be designated, a

Income Tax Act
matter which was dealt with separately, and therefore the amendment is out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On this particular point may I just say to the Minister of Labour that the amendment we are now discussing was brought before the committee of the whole, was not objected to, and in fact it was voted on. It may not be much of a precedent now to refer back, but certainly it was not objected to at that time, and we had a vote on it. Therefore I cannot see how on earth it can be out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying anything about the substance of the amendment; I am only interested in knowing whether the amendment is in order or not.
It seems to me that at the present time we are discussing two distinct problems. The first relates to the technical or clerical errors which the amendment may contain. On that point I submit that any such error in the drafting of the amendment may be immediately rectified. There is no error of substance here but only an error as to the form. Consequently, I feel that hon. members would be ill-inspired to reject a change made at the proper time, as we are only confronted with a clerical error. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) wants to bring the necessary modification to his amendment, I think everything will be quite in order.
As to whether the amendment departs from the subject matter of the bill or is entirely foreign to it, that is to say the manner in which the depressed areas are designated personally I do not think that such is the case; the amendment does not modify the manner of designating the areas, if that amendment is proper for the whole, it should be proper also for that part. That is why I submit that the amendment is completely in order.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, on this question of the amendment I should like to refer the house to the book "Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons" by W. S. Dawson, published in 1962, which I submit is the most recent authority in this regard. I should like to refer to page 177, the top paragraph, where I find these words:
The rules which govern the content of amendments are largely those dictated by common sense.
To that degree the amendment of the right hon. gentleman is certainly out of order. The right hon. gentleman also said something about B.C., although it might have been more
[Mr. MacEachen.J
appropriate to refer to "A.D."-"after Diefenbaker". Anyway it will not be long before that is apropos in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I might also refer to page 178 of the same publication.


Mr. MacEwan:: What about Renfrew South?


John James Greene: That will be all right as long as I am there.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You made a speech on this already.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: I refer to page 178, a sentence which reads as follows:
It is improper to present an amendment which repeats any question already decided by the house in the same session.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-74 has already been passed by this house. That bill showed how designated areas were described and how they would be found. I submit with respect to Your Honour that this bill having already been passed and that question having already been decided, this amendment is purporting to present to the house the repetition of a question already decided by the house in this session when it passed Bill No. C-74, which defined how designated areas were selected. That being the case the amendment is palpably out of order.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on this point I think it is quite possible for certain words or combinations of words used in different enactments to have different meanings. This amendment is not attempting in any way at all to try to do that suggested by the hon. member who has just spoken. We are not going back to the Department of Industry Act to change the meaning of "designated area". But I submit we are entitled for the purpose of the Income Tax Act to say that a designated area shall have the meaning given to it in the Department of Industry Act with certain qualifications added. That is all we are trying to do. This amendment relates to the meaning of "designated area" for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, not for the purpose of the Department of Industry Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These are, of course, very interesting comments and suggestions made for the guidance of the Chair. I must say that I am not too impressed by the substantive objections which have been made to the validity or regularity of the amendment. I think if we go to the citation which has been referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), namely citation 415(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition,

we have the basic principle which should guide us in this particular instance:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It seems to me that this is what this amendment intends to do, and I would think that as far as the substance of it is concerned it is quite in order.
I go along with the argument submitted by some hon. members to the effect that there are technical difficulties or errors, but they are strictly technical. For example there is the fact that the amendment should have perhaps been brought in after subsection 2(b) rather than subsection 1(b); but if it were the will of the house the right hon. member could change his amendment at this time quite easily. This is not a substantial difficulty. Reference was also made to the fact that the amendment refers to paragraph 71 A, subsection 1(b) rather than to clause 16 of the bill itself. To my mind that is also a technicality and should not be taken into account by the Chair so as to declare the amendment out of order.
For these reasons I would rule that the amendment is acceptable in its present form.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, some little while ago I was saying that I hoped, in view of the range of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I might be given a little more licence than perhaps might be usual in introducing the remarks I should like to make with regard to the particular subject the Leader of the Opposition concentrated on toward the end of his comments. His criticism should really be examined in the context of the government's whole broad program for expanding the economy and reducing unemployment. He referred to a matter which went back, I think, to 1961 and to what, according to him, had been proposed at that time. If I may I should like to summarize very briefly the actions being taken, to date, in connection with the government's broad program for stimulating business activity and for creating new job opportunities.
1.	I should like, first, to mention the initial constructive action of the new Department of Industry to develop a new automobile policy. It is hoped that this policy will result in increased production of automobile parts in Canada to the amount of between $150 million and $200 million. This, of course, will create many thousands of new jobs.
2.	A municipal development and loan board has been established with a fund of $400 million. Agreements or arrangements have now been made with all the provinces and
Income Tax Act
the board is engaged in making loans. The increased construction activity which will result from this program should provide thousands of new jobs this winter and next winter.
3.	An Atlantic development board has been created, with a fund of $100 million. It is designed to strengthen the whole economic structure of the Atlantic area and in doing so it, also, will create many thousands of new jobs in that part of Canada.
4.	The technical and vocational program for training the unemployed has been expanded.
5.	Further encouragement has been given to municipal winter works incentive programs by raising the federal government's contribution from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the direct payroll costs of approved projects in designated areas.
6.	The federal government has speeded up its own construction programs in designated areas-or will speed them up-this winter.
7.	A new program has been approved to encourage the employment of older workers. This is provided for in the part of the budget to which the right hon. gentleman referred. The federal government will pay 50 per cent of the monthly wages paid to workers over 45 who have been out of work for a consecutive period of nine months, up to a maximum of $75 per month.
8.	A bonus of $500 will be paid to the first purchasers of winter built houses.
9.	The necessary funds have been provided to permit the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to finance an expanded house building program during this coming winter.
10.	Generous tax incentives have been approved-I should say we hope they will now be approved-to encourage new manufacturing and processing businesses in areas of slower growth and persistent unemployment. This is one of the matters under discussion in the bill which is now before the house.
11.	Incentives are provided for industries with a degree of Canadian ownership to expand anywhere in Canada. This, also, is in the bill before us.
We are very hopeful that this new broad program will be successful. We think it will be. We are very hopeful that the particular program designed to assist unemployed workers over 45 years of age will be successful. The right hon. gentleman referred once or twice to the budget, and I should like to remind him that this was provided for in the budget. It is something about which all of us on this side are very proud. It is the first time a special program of this kind has been developed to help re-establish as useful members of society men in middle life who have been out of work for a long time.

Income Tax Act
I should also like to say that we are receiving encouraging reports about the program for stimulating winter house building and that the original estimates of what might be achieved under this program are now being revised upwards.
The policy for stimulating economic activity in areas of slower growth is a new one for Canada although similar policies have worked successfully in Britain and in most of the countries of western Europe. The government is hopeful that the generous incentives provided for in the bill which is now before the house will encourage new manufacturing and processing businesses to establish themselves in these areas. These are the areas where unemployment has been exceptionally high and where it has persisted for some years. The new policy is aimed directly at the solution of this evil. This policy for stimulating activity in areas of slower growth is, as I have indicated, only one item, though an important item, in the broad and comprehensive program which has been developed by the government. Though it has worked successfully in the United Kingdom and in various countries of Europe, as I said a moment ago, it has not previously been tried in Canada and we believe it is high time that it should be. It is time a real effort was made to revive and reinvigorate these areas of slow growth where the level of unemployment has been high and chronic.
Conservative spokesmen have opposed this new policy on three grounds. First, they have opposed it because it is a new and untried idea, at least in Canada. We all know that some people do not like new ideas.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the government respects the autonomy of the provinces, it is all right.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will come to that in a moment, but I suspect, despite the interruption of the hon. member, that the main reason for the criticism from the benches opposite is just that this is a new idea and, therefore, suspect per se.
The second criticism-and this is the point to which I have just referred-is that this policy interferes in some way with the rights of the provinces or of the municipalities. Well, I do not know why a province should object if the federal government does things which will create more jobs in certain areas of persistent unemployment. Furthermore, I doubt, if upon reflection, municipal officials will object very much if this policy results in a great deal of activity and many more jobs in their areas. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Brantford and to the mayor of Brantford. I am informed by my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) that the

mayor of Brantford is delighted to have this chance for his area and to have Brantford included among the areas designated.
I would remind hon. members that no formula has been put forward by anyone, in or out of parliament, for effective consultation in advance of budget changes, and the policy we are discussing was put forward in the budget; it is part of the tax bill. It is not many months since some hon. members were implying- without any foundation whatsoever, as it turned out-that there might have been some leaks prior to the introduction of the last budget. I repeat that these implications were without foundation and I do not think any members of this house seriously believe them any more. But I should not like to think what might have been the case, or what might be the case in the future, if budget proposals were discussed in advance with representatives of provincial governments and their municipalities or, for that matter, with anyone else outside the federal government itself.


An hon. Member:: What a conversion.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That was an interesting remark but I did not quite get its implication. I should like to raise another matter which seems to me of paramount importance in connection with this particular criticism. We Liberals believe, and I am sure some members of other parties believe, that the federal government must take some responsibility for the level of economic activity and the opportunities for employment throughout the whole of Canada. This should not and cannot be left to the ten provincial governments acting independently. We were elected to do our very best to improve conditions in Canada and to take whatever action may be needed to provide jobs for the people who need them so badly. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that we cannot shirk that responsibility by saying that it is the responsibilty of the provinces, as was implied by the Leader of the Opposition.
The third criticism of this whole policy for stimulating economic activity in areas of slower growth and high and chronic unemployment is that the areas that have been singled out for special help should have been designated in some other way. No one has said just how this should have been done; presumably no one has any idea of how this should be done or he would have suggested it.
As I explained in the house on November 6, and the reference is Hansard, page 4473, the criteria for the selection of designated areas have been based on the employment and unemployment record for the summer months rather than the annual average, in

order to avoid undue emphasis on winter unemployment in areas where the main problem is not of a seasonal character. At that time I reviewed in detail the criteria for the establishment of a designated area and I also pointed out that provision had been made for flexibility in altering the boundaries of designated areas and for adding new national employment service areas as soon as or if they fulfil, and I hope they do not, the criteria of eligibility. I hope they do not, because that might suggest we were going to have substantial unemployment in other parts of the country, which we would all deplore.
Opposition spokesmen have concentrated their attacks with regard to designated areas on questioning whether one particular area, namely Brantford, should have been included in the list. My colleague, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), dealt with this question in detail on October 16 and his remarks will be found in Hansard at page 3651. As he pointed out, representations from all 35 areas designated, including Brantford, have registered only satisfaction with having been so designated.
I think I might also point out that of the total of 31 surplus manpower areas declared by the previous government, 11 are identical with the present list of designated areas and in a number of others there is some degree of overlapping. I think some hon. members may have got the impression that the definition of a designated area is something new and very different. I should like to summarize the definition of a surplus manpower area that was developed previously and show how closely the new definition follows it.
Under the surplus manpower definition it was provided, first, that areas with a labour force of 10,000 or over must be classified by the Department of Labour in a surplus labour market category for 75 per cent or more of the summer months, May to October, 1953 to 1960; also, industrial employment must have declined. Under the first requirement of the definition of a designated area the area must be classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months-in the earlier one it was 75 per cent-May to October during the past eight years, and it has experienced an employment increase of less than one half the national average over the same period.
There are alternatives. The first one under the surplus manpower definition provides that areas with a labour force of 10,000 must have been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus market for 50 per cent or more of the summer months, 1953 to 1960;
Income Tax Act
also, industrial employment must have deteriorated over this period. Under the new definition of a designated area the alternative is that it has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one third or more of the summer months, May to October, during the past eight years, and it has experienced an employment decrease over the same period.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have been arguing about two definitions that are very similar, and for the life of me I cannot understand what all the fuss has been about.


Mr. Pugh:: You had better consult the communities.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Let me repeat that no one has come up with a better formula. The criticism has been purely negative in its approach.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he bothered to read the suggestions with regard to the formula that were placed before him in previous debates. I take exception to his statement and I should like the minister to comment. In my view some of the suggestions put forward by myself and my associates with regard to the formula were constructive.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I have offended the hon. member in any way or if I have not taken into account some of the proposals that were made, I am sorry and I apologize. But in the broad sense, I have been suggesting that while the formula may not be perfect, it will be revised in the light of experience and in the light of the proposals that have been made by other members of the house. But apart from that, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this program for stimulating areas of slow growth and areas where unemployment is particularly high is a good one. As I say, I am not suggesting it is perfect, and if it can be improved in the light of experience I am sure everyone on this side of the house will be very happy to improve it.
In the meantime, we believe that this program will go a long way towards restoring life and vigour to areas that have been too long neglected. We believe it will provide more jobs where they are most needed. So far as the government is concerned, we propose to push this measure just as hard as we can.
Now, in doing so, I suppose we must expect criticism from those who, as I said a few minutes ago, perhaps are not quite temperamentally ready for new ideas. But despite this, I should like to repeat that we intend to press forward with the kind of new program, the kind of new ideas that are needed to make this country prosperous, including this program of assistance to areas of

Income Tax Act
slow growth. We believe that this is what the Canadian people want, and we know that this is what the people elected us to do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the minister why the government refused to submit this project to the provinces?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will answer your question in a moment.
I say to hon. members, and especially to the Leader of the Opposition, that it is time we stopped jockeying for position. It is time, and I say this with respect because I know I am a relatively new member, we stopped these endless votes of confidence, and this is a vote of confidence.


Mr. Monteith:: Why don't you just run a dictatorship and be done with it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is time we got down to work.


Mr. Winkler:: Give us decent proposals, then.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked why this program has not been or is not to be presented for discussion with the provinces, and presumably the municipalities because they were mentioned by other members, before it is implemented. As I have said, first of all, it is a budget proposal. I do not believe anyone seriously expects that budget proposals should be discussed with the provinces and municipalities ahead of time. Then, it is a tax proposal. Surely, the federal government must take responsibility for the kind of taxes it imposes. But above all, I have said that this is a proposal to get people back to work. With the greatest respect, I say that is a responsibility of the federal government, and I hope we shall all live up to it.


Michael Starr: Before the minister takes his seat, may I ask him a question. In view of what he has said, that you would not expect the government to ask for any advice from the provinces in connection with budgetary matters, how does he then square this with the suggestion that before the next budget is introduced he will seek the advice of various parts of our economy such as farmers, labour, and so on?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am really very pleased the hon. member for Ontario has asked me this question because it gives me the opportunity to range a little farther than perhaps I should have been able to do otherwise. I do not believe anyone has come up with a final solution to this problem of budget making under our system of government. There are those who have suggested we should adopt the United States system. When you get down

to thinking about the United States system, you realize it is really not appropriate for a parliamentary system such as ours. Before the last budget, I considered whether or not the whole principle of the way it has been done for generations under our system should be changed. I wondered at that time, and I still wonder, whether it would be practical to have a series of public discussions ahead of time to get the views and suggestions of various people, not so that the government could duck this responsibility, because in the last analysis under our system the government must produce a budget and must accept responsibility for it, but mainly to get the benefit of other people's ideas.
I have been thinking about this recently, as I am sure other hon. members have been. It seems to me that at the moment the best we can do is to invite the principal organizational groups to put forward their ideas, let the government have the benefit of their ideas at an early stage and not have these briefs and representations coming along after the main budget proposals have been pretty well decided. This year we have asked that these representations or proposals be made to the government, preferably in December but in any event by the end of January.
Now, this is a beginning or I hope it will be a beginning. I do not say it is the final answer, but at the moment it is a beginning. To answer the hon. member's question directly, I think that if we had tried to hold a federal-provincial conference before the last budget was introduced, we might not have made that time table that I have been trying to forget.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question? Is it correct to assume from what the minister has said that what he is proposing now is to follow the present system of consultation through briefs and suggestions by organizations but have them presented a little earlier?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we are all looking forward to this federal-provincial conference that is going to begin a week from Monday. I will be very disappointed if we do not get some useful suggestions at that time.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, if I may. The minister said he was asking that representations be made well in advance of the next budget; but has he asked the municipalities-


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the Minister of Finance, the present questioner and the hon. member for Ontario were completely out of order in raising the whole question of the budget. We are now discussing the Income Tax Act and the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I could speak to the point of order, it seems to me that this amendment is on consultation. The suggestion has been put forward that before the next budget consultation will be requested well in advance. I am suggesting that we were talking mainly about the municipalities and the notice they receive as designated areas. I am asking, is the minister looking so far ahead that he will be asking the municipalities if they would care to be consulted in the future?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to answer the question if I am permitted to do so. I certainly hope that the federation of mayors and municipalities will submit their usual briefs to the government well in advance of the next budget, and that that brief will include their usually constructive suggestions on a wide variety of subjects.


David Vaughan Pugh: Didn't their last brief contain suggestions?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to hold the house up very long on this. I am interested, however, to hear the great regard which the members of the official opposition apparently have for the rights of the provinces when at the same time they introduce an amendment which clearly and completely cuts out the provinces from any consultation, because the provinces are to have no authority whatever of their own; they can act only on the authority of the municipalities.
In that regard I would say also, Mr. Speaker, that it may be true in the old home of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker)-I believe it is-that the entire province is divided into municipalities. It is not true in many other provinces. It is not true in my province, and I for one would not dare support this proposed amendment, when it would clearly cut out the rights of people living outside municipalities in the province to be designated as being in areas requiring special control. It may just be another case of the careless draftsmanship for which the official opposition seem to be so skilled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McIntosh:: Is that in order?
28902-5-300
Income Tax Act


Colin Cameron: But I would suggest that this is not merely a question of draftsmanship. This is a question of the actual wording of the amendment, and the amendment is that the provinces are not to be consulted.


An hon. Member:: They are not now.


Colin Cameron: The hon. member says they are not now, so he is apparently satisfied with the situation, because he supports an amendment that is going to continue to exclude them, and not only exclude them by practice but exclude them by legislation. From now on the federal government would not be permitted, if this amendment were to pass, to consult with the provinces unless the municipalities had taken the initiative in approaching their provincial governments.
I cannot believe that this amendment was presented as a serious contribution toward improving the Income Tax Act, when we see the terms in which it has been drafted. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition, being myself at the same melancholy stage of existence, and I can well believe that now and again he hears the words of Andrew Marvell saying:
But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
But I would suggest there is something odd in this determination to thumb a ride on time's winged chariot to oblivion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin).


Mr. Rynard:: I just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Waterloo South who, I understand, seconded the amendment.


Mr. Gordon Chaplin (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when I came into this house today for his extremely generous words in connection with myself. I was very much taken aback by the reception given to his words by the house, and I do not quite know how to answer or how to thank hon. members and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for his very gracious reply. This has been a very heart-warming experience for me and has gone a long way, I might say, to making up for some rather dreary months that I had to spend during the summer. I would say to the Minister of Finance, however, that it has presented some problems to me, because when I heard him speak and heard the reception given by, not only my own friends and associates but those on the benches opposite,

Income Tax Act
I had to hurriedly go through my notes and discard many of them, as I felt he had completely disarmed me.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that speaking at this very late date on Bill No. C-95 there is the danger of indulging in some repetition, but I hope to be able to bring forward some new viewpoint, or at least be able to underscore some of what I feel are the objectionable features of this bill, for the further consideration of the government. Hon. members opposite, when they were sitting in opposition, were most vigorous and vociferous in attacking the government of that day and blaming it for the unemployment that existed in this country. One got the impression at that time that every community in this country was wallowing in the depths of depression, that unemployment lurked everywhere; but today it is very gratifying to note that this designated areas legislation of the government, which is supposed to be a very important step in the curing of unemployment in this country, is found to be necessary and applicable in such relatively few places across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point to make it very clear that I am not opposed to the principle of this legislation in regard to designated areas, as long as it is applied to communities that are truly in need. Those places that have been mentioned in the list of such areas-those in the maritimes, for example-I feel qualify for this type of assistance. Due to geography the maritimes are in a relatively poor manufacturing position in this country, particularly in relation to the markets of central Canada. Transportation enters into this question; inaccessibility and availability of supplies is probably another factor. So in my opinion at least it is quite right and proper to offer every assistance possible to encourage industry to become established in that general area.
I am not completely familiar with the conditions in Quebec, but I have no reason to doubt that all the places that have been mentioned there have valid claims. I will come back in a moment to Ontario, but at this time I want to say that one of the most striking features about this list of designated areas is the almost complete ignoring of western Canada. I realize that under the strange, backward looking formula, if I may say so, that the government is using to qualify areas as designated areas, perhaps few places in western Canada could qualify. I know there has been prosperity on the prairies for the last several years, and it is quite likely that this will continue for some time to come. I am sorry that he is not in his seat at the moment, but I would at this point like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Trade and

Commerce (Mr. Sharp) on the success he has enjoyed in selling western wheat to communist countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Chaplin: This has been an extension and an expansion of the successful policy of the previous government, when it started to sell wheat to China. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, while I am mentioning that matter, I might say that hon. members opposite, when they were sitting in opposition, viewed the Conservative government's wheat policy with very little enthusiasm. The then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), was somewhat less than enthusiastic, and if my recollection is correct, the leader of the Social Credit party was actually hostile. Now all the boys have climbed on the band wagon and everybody thinks it is a wonderful thing. I understand that the Minister of Trade and Commerce now feels that the sale of wheat to communist countries is likely to become a permanent pattern in the future. If that is so, he is more sanguine than I am, because I still look upon this as a windfall which will be, or can be withdrawn just as soon as it suits the Russians and Chinese to do so, although I firmly believe we should take full advantage of this favourable situation while it exists. We must at the same time recognize that the more we come to depend on it, the more vulnerable we are. Therefore I feel it would be only common sense to diversify the western Canadian economy as much as possible. I believe the farmers have done this to a large extent in certain areas, and I would think one way to do this would be to encourage, in every possible way, the establishment of industry in western Canada.
I simply cannot understand the ignoring of western interests because if such a policy were successful, and if it holds the high hopes that the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance have indicated, it would strengthen immeasurably the western economy, and the economy of the whole of Canada. I think that this situation highlights above all others the basic weakness of this legislation, in which it fails to provide for consultation with the provinces, because the question of these designated areas is of the utmost importance.
After all this talk we have heard about cooperative federalism, it would seem to me the first thing the government would do, or would want to do, is bring the provinces into the picture. Had they done this they would not be in the mess they are now in, relative to the city of Brantford.
Again I come back to Ontario. I am not going to quarrel with the designated areas that have been built up and are dependent

on single industries, or with a city like Elliot Lake whose troubles are very real and entirely beyond the control of the citizens in that community. But I do object very strongly to the misuse of public money for the subsidization of the establishment of industry in an area that is on the perimeter of one of the richest, most properous and most progressive areas in Canada. As I said earlier, there was no provision for consultation, co-operation or co-ordination with the provincial governments. There has, in fact, been no effort to get in touch with them in setting up designated areas, and not only was there no consultation with the provinces but neither was there any consultation with the officials of the municipalities concerned.
The mayor of Brantford learned in the press about the city becoming a designated area. The rest of that community woke up one morning and found they had become the adopted and retarded child of the federal government.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal government.


Gordon Chaplin: Well, it happens to be the same thing.
Some few days ago the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) made a factual and well constructed speech, and went to considerable pains to point out that the legislation such as we have been considering in regard to designated areas had been successfully used in European countries, and more particularly in Great Britain. In fact I think she pointed out at that time that they had gone very much farther than we had attempted to go in this country.
I would certainly corroborate her statement in this regard because I had some experience, some years ago in England, in the interests of the company with which I am associated, of trying to develop export business. At that time the British government offered very interesting incentives to have us start an operation in Britain, but the point was that this operation had to be established in the depressed areas. From memory I recall they offered to build a plant to our specifications, and lease it to us if we would establish in a certain area in Wales, and I recall, as the hon. lady mentioned, that there were extremely attractive incentives for the establishment of industry in Northern Ireland and in various other places in Great Britain.
But the point is that there was no premium for industry to establish in London. There was no premium for industry to establish on the rich and wealthy south coast, nor I believe in the industrial midlands. That is exactly the point I want to try and make and stress here today. There should not be 28902-5-300i
Income Tax Act
any subsidy for industry to establish in any community that borders on the perimeter of one of the richest, most industrialized and progressive areas in the whole of Canada.
As I tried to indicate earlier, I have the highest personal regard for the Minister of Finance, and I am sure he will not take any undue offence, but can you imagine his consternation if he woke up one morning and found that an adjoining constituency to his riding in Davenport had been declared a depressed area? One may say that obviously in a metropolitan area such as Toronto a riding could not possibly be made a designated area without including the whole metropolitan area. That is the point I am trying to make here.
The distance between Galt and Brantford is some 15 miles. This is considerably less than is encompassed in metropolitan Toronto, and I suggest most strongly that the government cannot proffer special treatment to one community without damaging the adjacent communities. This is particularly true when the proposed designated area has no physical handicaps, as compared to its immediate neighbours. Its location is comparable. It has comparable transportation facilities. Its power rates are comparable and, although I have not gone into this, I do not see any reason that its assessment or taxing structure would be out of line with the surrounding communities. The climate is the same. There is no difference in terrain. The designated area is centrally located, and there simply is not any reason that can be explained to me why Brantford cannot stand on its own feet.
Now, if I have seemed unduly critical of Brantford, that was not my intention. I do not blame the officials of Brantford for taking advantage of this unexpected windfall. They have done what anybody else would have done under the circumstances, and I do not blame them at all for it. They simply cannot afford to look a gift horse of this kind in the mouth. This is the kind of gift horse they would gladly see stay on the government payroll in perpetuity, and I believe the minister has certain experience along that line.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate to the house the story of a certain community in Waterloo South, and I speak of the town of Hespeler. I might explain that back in 1958 it was a one-industry town dominated by and dependant by and large on the huge Dominion Woollens plant that had operated there for years. This plant had thousands of employees during the world war, and up until 1958 it employed some 600 or 700 persons. Then, in April of that year, the plant closed down putting those 600 or 700 persons

Income Tax Act
completely out of work and with apparently no possibility of getting work in that community.
This in a community of 4,000 people, so you can see, Mr. Speaker, the crisis which faces them. This action left 11 acres of factory space empty. I am not going to dwell at length on this, but these people did not come crying to the government asking for government subsidies. They got off their fat seats and went out and brought industry into the community, and today the floor space in that plant is filled. New industries have come in during the last few months and established themselves, and the community is now in a stronger position than it has ever been in the past. I use that simply as an illustration of the initiative shown by this one small community.
I do not want to appear unduly critical of Brantford, as I say, or make odious comparisons, but I think that what this small community has accomplished is obvious. I feel the Minister of Industry, and perhaps the Minister of Finance who has been defending this bill, in making this decision to designate Brantford as a retarded area have been the victims of their own statistics. Statistics have their place and their value, but at best serve merely as a guide line. Certainly they have to be understood. Looking back into the past it seems only a short time ago when the Liberal party during the last election had a full head of steam and were in full flight. The whole country reverberated with their slogan: "Take a stand for tomorrow".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Chaplin: Someone says hear, hear. To me that slogan indicated an interest in the future; that some forward-looking stand would be taken. The Minister of Industry is now looking eight years backwards. He is not looking to the future. He has made his judgment on stale and rancid statistics which are today meaningless.
What does the future hold for Galt, Kitchener, Preston, Guelph and that whole area that it does not hold for Brantford? There is a $13 million Massey-Harris plant being built there, and it will be interesting to note whether this plant will qualify for these subsidies. From what I have said I do not mean to suggest that Brantford has been without any problems. One of the serious problems which has confronted that community has been the fact that the production of some of the major industries has been rather seasonal in nature, which has resulted in higher than normal lay-offs during the summer. This is where the statistics have been deceptive. I

suggest that the subsidization of new industry to establish itself in a community will not correct this situation. I am afraid I never did know what was to be the ultimate function of the new Department of Industry, but I respectfully suggest that the minister or a representative from his department might have consulted with these particular industries to explore the possibility of their levelling out their peaks and their valleys of production. That might indeed have proven fruitful, and this should have been done before the minister committed himself so hastily to a policy of subsidizing industry in an area which really does not need it and for which there is no justification. Government speakers from time to time have admitted that this particular part of the legislation is discriminatory, and they have tried to justify this discrimination. Coming from an adjoining area I feel that this is vicious discrimination which has already proved damaging to adjacent communities.
I do not want to take too much time in quoting from the press, but I have before me a copy of the Brantford Expositor of Wednesday, November 6. There is an article headed. "City sends stream of mail to new industry prospects" and it goes on to say:
Brantford may be a "designated area" industrially-indicative of slow economic growth-but it is fast taking advantage of the label.
A stream of mail-outlining the tax benefits of locating new industries in Brantford has been shot out of acting industrial commissioner Harry Richards' office to all and any industry of which he can think.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that speaks for itself.
And now what of the future? In fact, what of the present? If hon. members look at the copies of the Canada Labour Gazette they will find statistics given relative to the labour supply. They will find that in the month of September certain things happened. In the September issue there is a table showing the classification of labour market areas, and it is broken down into areas of substantial labour surplus and moderate labour surplus, showing the approximate balance and labour shortage. In September Brantford was in the approximate balance group, as was Kitchener and Guelph. Looking back to August the situation was the same. Going back further Brantford is shown in some situations as an area of moderate surplus labour. At the same time Galt, Kitchener and other areas in that vicinity are also shown as moderate surplus areas. I have been trying to point out that Brantford suffers from no natural hazards or handicaps common to other sections of the area. These other communities have no natural advantages, certainly no substantial advantages, over Brantford, and as I said earlier

I feel strongly that this is a matter of the application of public funds.
I also said earlier that I agree with the general principle of this legislation and what it was supposed to accomplish, but I think that this legislation would have been infinitely stronger and the government would have been greatly strengthened had they provided in the legislation consultation and co-operation with the provinces. I suggest that had they done so, and had they consulted with the Ontario government, they would not find themselves in this particular difficulty with regard to Ontario today.
I should now like to refer to another clause in the bill. I believe it is 71.A. (3). At any rate, it has to do with the capital cost of machinery. I will not read this particular paragraph, but having read Hansard in connection with it I feel there has been considerable confusion as to its meaning. I gather from the statement made by the minister that the direct effect will be to ensure that industries establishing themselves in designated areas must supply themselves with new machinery at least to the extent of 95 per cent. I have read the comments of the Minister of Finance on this and I can understand the point he is making when he says he does not want people bringing in second hand machinery to compete with established firms. X think there is a certain validity about this point. I also noticed the comments of the Minister of Industry in this regard to the effect that it is to precisely to avoid the likelihood of businesses which, rather than expanding and creating a new operation, merely shift their centre of operations from one area to another, that a provision of this kind is needed.
I think the possibility of such a thing happening is much more apparent than real. It might be possible in certain light industries, for example the needle trades, for all concerned to pack up over the week end and move to another location. But-apparently, the minister does not appreciate the problems which would be involved in moving a heavy or a medium sized industry. It would take months. There would be great difficulty about maintaining production, providing for continuity of supplies to customers and so on. Formidable problems would be presented and from my own experience I can say that no company would go to such trouble and expense unless the move were part of a long-range plan not likely to be predicated upon tax incentives of a few years duration, such as this one.
Nevertheless, I feel that the clause providing for 95 per cent new equipment as contained in this legislation is unrealistic. In my opinion some lesser figure would meet the
Income Tax Act
requirement of the Minister of Finance. I see that an amendment was moved to reduce the figure to 25 per cent, but this was not acceptable to the government. I should like to suggest that 50 per cent would not be unreasonable and that if, in conjunction with it, there were a provision specifying that this 50 per cent be Canadian made, I think we would have something which would be both workable and beneficial. Thus, when a new company sought to establish itself in a designated area under this legislation the effect would be to stimulate other industry in this country. I believe this would not be far out of line with the objectives expressed by the Minister of Finance himself, namely to have more manufacturing done in Canada.
My own experience provides some basis for this suggestion, that 50 per cent of the machinery should be Canadian made. The company with which I am associated has, in the last two or three years, undertaken a large capital expenditure program involving certain heavy equipment which could not be obtained in Canada. But in every case where this equipment was built for us we insisted on having the manufacturer in the United States assign as much work as was possible to be done in Canada, out of Canadian materials and parts. It is surprising what can be accomplished in this direction if a determined effort is made. Thus I have found that even when machinery and equipment cannot be purchased complete in Canada, a 50 per cent Canadian content is not at all unreasonable. Moreover, there are many companies working in Canada today under licence agreements enabling them to bring in certain essentials and use certain designs, though the majority of the work is done and completed in Canada.
For these reasons I say that the percentage of Canadian content I have suggested would not be unreasonable. On the contrary it would be very practicable and I respectfully suggest that the minister give this proposal serious consideration and incorporate it into the legislation now before us.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise to make some suggestions respecting the amendment before us and to answer some of the exhortations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who moved this amendment.
First, if we were to take the wording of the amendment and consider what effect it would have were it passed, I think the whole house would be in a quandary. At least a great many of the words it contained would have to be amended so as to fit it into the bill which it purports to change. With respect, Mr. Speaker, even though the amendment has been ruled in order I suggest there is nothing the house

Income Tax Act
could do with it unless subsequent changes were made in it, supposing it were allowed to pass.
What concerned me were the remarks made by the Leader oi the Opposition when he asked us in the Social Credit party to remain consistent. Oh, the worthy exhortations of those who are without sin. I can recall when, back in 1958, the right hon. gentleman who was exhorting us this afternoon said: I will not rest as long as one man in Canada suffers as a result of unemployment. That statement was followed by an acceleration of the unemployment rate in Canada to the highest level in peacetime history. How inconsistent can you be? I hope the right hon. gentleman had a good rest on April 9, 1963.
I remember, too, the speeches he made to the people of Canada over the television and radio, and so on, before June 18, 1962. He told the people we were at the highest economic level in our history and that there were no problems facing Canada at all. He said that until June 18. And on June 24 he and his friends went on television again telling us that we were in a crisis. What is even worse, I heard the right hon. gentleman in a nationwide broadcast trying to tell the people of Canada even after that date that the whole international crisis concerning the balance of payments developed between June 18 and June 24.
As I said before: Oh, the exhortations of those who are without sin. At the time the television broadcast was made, subsequent to the imposition of those surcharges on June 24, 1962, people across Canada laughed at a man who had built such an image, only to destroy himself in such a short time.


David Vaughan Pugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Point of order all you like. Why did you not call order when the hon. gentleman was asking us to remain consistent?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Why don't you walk across the floor and get it over with?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. gentleman raising a point of order?


David Vaughan Pugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, despite all that was said by the last speaker I would point out that we are on an amendment having to do with consultation, and the only thing I wish to suggest is that the hon. member should be brought to order and told to stick to the point.


John James Greene: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the last speaker spoke about everything from wheat, to industries, to his trips abroad. Hon. gentlemen let him go on, but when the party of that hon. gentleman is

quite properly catching it, and when the Leader of the Opposition is catching it, then it is a point of order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we had a second budget debate today by the Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I would think there has been a good deal of leniency in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Maybe I could suggest to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that we should get back to the amendment before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Manning's slave.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say it is pathetic to see a Canadian statesman destroy the image that gave him the greatest mandate in Canadian history. I will just let it go at that. I want him to know what we think of his exhortations that we remain consistent.
There have been a number of retreats from the original proposals in the budget, but taking into consideration the composition of the house at this time I think that may be a desirable thing. We in this party have stated a number of times that when a party has the responsibility of governing the country and is in a minority position in parliament there is an even heavier burden on members of the opposition to help the government to govern.


An hon. Member:: Move over.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These gentlemen over here do not agree with that. They cannot understand any kind of government except the one-man dictatorial type we had in the past four years with a whole horde of subservient and unquestioning supporters. That is the only kind of government they can understand. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the house and particularly the right hon. gentleman that we are going to remain consistent by assuming our share of the responsibility for the governing of Canada.


Mr. Souiham:: Why don't you walk across the house and be done with it?


John James Greene: Not just obstruction.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This party has made a number of suggestions with respect to some of the proposals in the budget. Not all of them have been accepted, but some very important ones have. I suggest this is a desirable new departure in government in that it has listened to the opposition on occasion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Is this the last Liberal
speaker?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With regard to the amendment, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) has suggested that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was not really serious. In my view the evidence that the right hon. gentleman placed before the house this afternoon bears this out completely, because as soon as he moved the amendment he left the house. He did not even stay to listen to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) had to say about the amendment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have said on a number of occasions that there should be consultation locally with regard to designated areas. Clearly the amendment is out of order. It is poorly put together. They have not even got the right numbers in the right places.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker ruled on it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Therefore, considering all these things there is no question that we cannot support it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Since the beginning of the discussion on the amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), reference is made to consultation between the federal government and the provinces. And the question of provincial autonomy is always to the fore.
When reference is made to provincial autonomy, I think in most cases, it concerns the autonomy of the province of Quebec.
In- reading the amendment over and over again, and taking into account our past experience and the statements made yesterday, I cannot help but think that the political parties have only one objective at this time and it is to try and make the people of Quebec believe that they have realized the problem facing that province and that they are prepared to settle it, although they have really understood nothing of the present problem of federal-provincial relations.
Indeed, the crux of the problem is on taxation reform. And it is precisely that matter which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition would not discuss last night.
The problem really concerns taxation reform between the federal government and the provinces, rather than an amendment like the one moved by the Leader of the
Division
Opposition, under which the federal government would first designate some regions which in turn, through their provincial government would ask the federal government to accept them.
I think that it is a way to evade the question, a way to throw a smokescreen over the true problem. Well, we will not be a party to this evasive action by the old line political parties.
Mr. Speaker, we do not wish to take any part in endeavours to divert attention from the real problem and this is why we will not fall into the snare set for us when we are told that it is in order to protect the rights and privileges demanded by the provinces.
We feel that this amendment is no solution to the real problem. We would like the problem to be really considered from the point of view which we have suggested, that is to give each province the means to look after its own affairs and not always treat the matter lightly by submitting amendments as it is now done.
The amendment, I must add, is very complicated. No matter how much we would consider and reconsider it from all angles, in our opinion, it remains just as complicated.
I wonder who could find a meaning to it. It it had been explained to us, perhaps we could express our views, but I must say that we will vote against it at this time.
Provincial autonomy would no more be respected if the municipal authorities were asked to voice their feelings to the federal government. Municipalities being creatures of the provincial governments have no business, in our opinion, to deal with the central government; that is up to the provinces.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I will forgo what I wanted to say on the amendment, and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel) will do the same, in order that the amendment can be voted on and so that hon. members opposite can endorse what they voted for last night by voting for the amendment that is before us now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. If I had voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Rinfret:: May I, with unanimous consent of the house, revert-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, is the house ready for the question on the main motion? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder would the house leader give us an outline of the business for tomorrow and Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will take the vocational training resolution, and if it is completed and first reading given to the bill, we will then take the resolution to set up the committee on the C.N.R. If that should be completed I think we would be prepared to go on with the motion preceding the centennial bill, or any other relatively non-contentious items on the order paper. Tomorrow evening it has been agreed that we should take the estimates of the hon. lady, the minister of citizenship-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is a bad day for me-the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If they should be completed before 10.30 the Minister of Fisheries would be glad to supplement them with those items of his that have not been completed.

I will have some discussion with hon. gentlemen opposite about legislation tor Friday up until five o'clock. There had been some discussion about having my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, proceed, but I understand there is some difficulty about that. In that case we would probably take the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on Friday evening, and if they were completed we would go on again with the estimates of northern affairs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Might I ask if the resolution stage of the vocational training bill were completed tomorrow, would we take the second reading of that on Friday?
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I understand my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, might not be able to be here, but if the house would excuse him and allow his parliamentary secretary to proceed with the bill, I think the government would be very glad to get on with that bill on Friday.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What about the post office estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman will get his turn.
It being twenty minutes after six o'clock
the house adjourned, without question put.
28902-5-301

Thursday, November 14, 19S3