1964-04-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not in his seat. My question of privilege arises out of a question I directed to him last Thursday, April 23, as reported at page 2487 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the agreement reached between Ottawa and Quebec respecting the Canada pension plan contains a provision allowing a province to change the contributions or the benefits without obtaining beforehand the consent of Ottawa and the other provinces?
To which the Prime Minister answered the following:
The agreement is that there will be a universal pension scheme the provisions of which will be applicable to all Canadians.
At that time we accepted the Prime Minister's answer, but yesterday the Quebec premier stated in explicit, clear and precise terms, and I quote:
I stated, said Mr. Lesage, and repeated and I repeat again that there will be a provincial pension plan in Quebec, a strictly provincial plan. The contributions will be collected by the province. They will be administered by the province. The benefits will be paid out by the province or by a provincial commission. One hundred per cent of the investments will be made by the province according to decisions made by the province. Provincial legislation will be introduced on that matter.
For the information of parliament, will the Prime Minister say whether he was aware of that matter or not? Because we were certainly misled. It clearly appears that Quebec will be given a double pension plan: one provincial and one national, according to statements by the premier and the Prime Minister. I should like the house to be informed on that matter.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was impossible for the Prime Minister to be in the house today, but I am sure he will give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.
20220-172J


Mr. Speaker:: The question raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve is supposedly a question of privilege, but I notice it was not followed through with any motion. I have to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, and it strikes me this is more in the nature of a complaint than a question of privilege. I am sure, the point having been raised this afternoon, that the Prime Minister will reply to it in due course.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the new dairy policy for the production year opening May 1.
I think the basic goal of all agricultural policies should be to maintain and improve the position of Canadian farmers in the national economy and to promote efficiency of production. This is the principle on which we are building our policy on all stabilization prices for farm products, including the dairy products concerned in the statement I am now making. We believe that efficient stabilization levels should ensure farmers a sound and stable return, consistent with realistic economics; keep Canadian farm products competitive both in price and quality, on the home market as well as in the markets of the world; and provide Canadian consumers with the highest quality food at the most reasonable prices possible.
A year ago I announced certain changes in the dairy support policy designed to pursue this general goal. For dairy products specifically, the changes were designed to bring consumption and production into better balance and at the same time to divert certain quantities of milk to the production of cheddar cheese.
I am pleased to be able to report that this program has over the past year been successful in meeting these objectives. For the dairy year now ending, total domestic consumption and export of dairy products are essentially in balance with production. Estimated butter production for the dairy year ending tomorrow is 352.1 million pounds. Estimated domestic consumption for the year was 357.4 million

Dairy Support Policy
pounds. Thus domestic consumption will exceed production by approximately five million pounds.
In addition to this we have made substantial export sales of butter in the form of butter oil, leaving estimated total butter stocks, including trade holdings, at the end of the dairy year of approximately 165 million pounds. This compares with total stocks a year ago of 203 million pounds. At the same time returns to producers of milk for manufacturing purposes have been above those of the previous year, while costs to the federal treasury, other than those associated with the accrued surplus, have been down.
Meanwhile milk production has remained strong and production of Cheddar cheese has risen. Production of Cheddar cheese for the dairy year now closing is an estimated 134.1 million pounds, an increase of 14 per cent over that of the previous year of 118.4 million pounds. Cheddar consumption was maintained at almost the same level, at 100 million pounds for this year compared to 102 million pounds for the previous year. Exports of Cheddar were higher this year by 14 per cent than for the previous year, at 31.2 million pounds compared to 27.4 million pounds. Cheddar stocks for the year are estimated at 46 million pounds compared to 37 million pounds a year ago.
In line with the action taken a year ago, changes in the dairy support program for the new year opening May 1 will be toward a further rationalization of the program. We are trying to put an emphasis on quality production while at the same time maintaining the basic support levels currently protecting the producer.
In order to narrow the gap between the support level and the selling price of the agricultural stabilization board, the board's price for butter will be set at 53 cents per pound for 40 score creamery butter, basis Montreal and Toronto. This is a reduction in the consumer subsidy of 1 cent per pound. It will transfer a slight proportion of the dairy subsidy cost from taxpayers as a whole to the actual users of butter. The change is not expected to have any effect on butter consumption and will mean a saving to the taxpayers of an estimated $3.5 million. Meanwhile the support level for producers will be maintained at 64 cents a pound by the board. This means manufacturers will be authorized to pay eligible producers 13.3 cents per pound of butterfat used for production of creamery butter.
The support for cheddar cheese will be maintained at the existing level of 32J cents per pound, but the basis on which it is paid will be revised to stress production of high quality cheese. Instead of paying 30 cents 
per hundredweight on milk used for cheddar cheese production, a payment of 3.6 cents per pound will be made on Canada first grade cheddar made from milk supplied by eligible producers. This will permit manufacturers of such cheese to pay at least the equivalent of the 30 cents per hundredweight assistance for cheese milk during the year now ending. The purchase program on dry skim milk and the assistance on milk used for the manufacture of casein will be reinstated on the same basis as in effect during the 196364 production year. Export assistance on certain dairy products will continue in the coming dairy year with the products and levels being made known to the trade by the board in due course.
In making this announcement I would stress that these moves represent another step toward solving what has been one of the most difficult agricultural problems facing not only Canada but many other countries in the world.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in the house today in regard to dairy policy. The dairy industry are accustomed to having this statement made prior to May 1, the beginning of the dairy year, and in this instance we are glad that the minister, although leaving it to the last moment, has made this statement. We are very pleased indeed to learn that one of the major dairy problems is being brought to a close, in that we find in the announcement made by the minister today that the domestic consumption and export of butter are being brought into line with the production of this commodity. This will alleviate one of the major problems of the dairy industry.
We welcome the statement made by the minister that he is going to continue the support on cheddar cheese, that butter will be subsidized and emphasis will be placed on the production of first grade cheddar cheese. We will have to wait until we can consider this report in some detail in order to deal specifically with the different parts of the announcement that has been made today but we are certainly pleased, sir, that the minister has taken this opportunity to announce to the country the dairy policy of this government.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1. Has a decision been made to move the federal

women's prison from Kingston to Cornwall and, if so, when was this decision made?
2.	Was consideration given to the possible difficulties of attracting qualified staff to Cornwall?
3.	In the Cornwall area are there available psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, trained in correction and teachers who could be recruited to work in the new institution?


Mr. Favreau:: 1. Yes, in January 1964, but the decision is being reviewed in the light of representations made by interested organizations.
2.	No difficulties are contemplated in attracting qualified staff to Cornwall.
3.	Such personnel are either available in the Cornwall area or can be recruited elsewhere to work in the new institution.


VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, POWELL RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Howard: Has any statement, commitment or promise been made by any minister of the crown to one Henry Castilou or anyone else of British Columbia that 90 per cent of the funds necessary for a vocational school in the Powell river district would be provided by the federal government and, if so, which minister or ministers made such a statement and at what time and where?


Mr. Badanai:: A delegation of Indians from British Columbia, accompanied by Mr. Castilou, during a visit to Ottawa last November discussed among other things the matter of vocational training for Indian boys and girls. The delegation mentioned establishing a separate vocational school for Indians but no commitment was made that this would be done. They were especially concerned with those who had ability but did not have the academic requirements for admission to the regular provincial training programs. It was indicated that consideration would be given to a special training program for this group. The department has already moved in this direction by having the Vancouver vocational institute offer special carpentry courses for Indians. In addition over 30 per cent of the enrolment in an upgrading program conducted by the province in Vancouver has been of Indian status and the results have been satisfactory.


* FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RECEIVING LESS THAN $1.25 PER HOUR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many employees does the government have who are now receiving less than $1.25 an hour, in both prevailing rates categories and for those who work on salary?
2.	Has the government an estimate on how much it would cost it per year if the minimum wage should be set by law at $1.25?


Mr. Benson:: 1. The last detailed calculation that was made refers to March, 1963, and at that time there were 5,500 salaried employees and 7,900 prevailing rate employees receiving less than $1.25 per hour.
Questions
2.	No estimate of the complete cost is available. However, to increase the 13,400 employees mentioned in 1 above to a minimum of $1.25 an hour would cost approximately $4,800,000 per annum. Substantial additional costs would result from requirements to reestablish differentials for some other classes already paid at $1.25 or more.


COMMEMORATION OF BIRTH OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD
Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to encouraging the suitable commemoration of the 150th anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald's birth, including the declaration of a national holiday on that date, Monday, January II, 1965?


Mr. Davis:: The government is giving consideration to a number of suggestions that have been made for the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald.


R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, ASHERN, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: What type of R.C.M.P. detachment quarters are planned for Ashern, Manitoba, and when will tenders be called?


Guy Favreau: A standard detachment building with office space, cell rooms, married and single quarters, is planned for Ashern, Manitoba and it is anticipated tenders will be called within the next two months.


R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, NORWAY HOUSE, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: What type of R.C.M.P. detachment quarters are planned for Norway House, Manitoba, and when will tenders be called?


Guy Favreau: One prefabricated office building and one standard detachment type married quarters are planned for Norway House, Manitoba. Tenders will be called during the fiscal year 1964-65.


* INCREASED GRANT TO CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the request of the Canada Council for an increase this year and for the next two years, to its endowment fund of $10,000,000 for a total of $30,000,000 so that the Canada Council can fulfil the important functions of supporting the arts, humanities and social sciences which has been assigned to the Canada Council?


Mr. Stewart:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as of this moment no decision has been reached.


R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, HODGSON, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Has land been purchased for R.C.M.P. detachment quarters at Hodgson, Manitoba, and, If so, from whom was land purchased and what was the cost?

Questions
2.	What type of detachment quarters do the plans call for and when will tenders be called?


Guy Favreau: 1. No.
2.	Present plans do not call for construction of new detachment quarters at Hodgson, Manitoba.


IMMIGRATION FROM INDIA
Mr. Howard: Is there an agreement in effect between the government of Canada and the government of India which restricts to 300 the number of citizens of India who may come to Canada in any one year for permanent residence and, if so. will steps be taken to rescind this agreement?


Mr. Tremblay:: In 1951 the Canadian and Indian governments entered into an agreement providing for the annual admission to Canada of 150 citizens of India over and above those categories of persons who were already eligible for admission under then existing immigration regulations. The agreement was revised in 1957 to increase the number involved from 150 to 300.
On the surface it might appear that this agreement is restrictive in nature as is suggested by the wording of the hon. member's question. However, it must be borne in mind that the agreement was concluded at a time when immigration regulations were not as broad in scope as they are at present. In effect therefore the agreement took the form of an extension of the admissible categories for citizens of India.
With the coming into force of new immigration regulations in February 1962, which gave everyone an equal opportunity to qualify for admission in his or her own right, the need for the agreement from the viewpoint of the Canadian government ceased. Discussions have since been held between representatives of the Canadian and Indian governments with a view to cancelling the agreement. In the meantime the agreement has remained in effect.
I would also like to say that the hon. member, in putting his question, has given me the opportunity to qualify to some extent the observations I made previously on this subject at page 1469 of Hansard during the course of the debate on ihe immigration supplementary estimates on March 25, 1964.


DOMICILIARY CARE PATIENTS, VETERANS HOSPITALS
Mr. Harley: What percentage of the total of the patients in the various D.V.A. hospitals across Canada have been hospitalized and considered to be domiciliary care cases for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963?


Mr. Teillei:: 1959, 49.9 per cent; 1960, 48.1 per cent; 1961, 47.2 per cent; 1962, 45.8 per cent; 1963, 46.4 per cent.


*MENTION OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES IN T.C.A. ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Bell: Did a recent two-page advertisement in The Scottish Field, sponsored by Trans-Canada Air Lines and/or Air Canada telling of Canada's attractions, neglect to mention the Atlantic provinces and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Caniin:: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines reports that this, in fact, was the case and added: It also omitted reference to points in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The reason is that if the impact of any advertisement is to be retained the amount of material contained in it must be severely curtailed.
The management of T.C.A. is reviewing this and other similar comments received concerning their advertisements.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Matheson: With reference to representations of the premier of Quebec respecting the power of the parliament of Canada to legislate on family allowances and student loans, will the government consider the advisability of referring these matters to the supreme court under the provisions of section 55 of the Supreme Court Act for consideration and adjudication?


John (Jack) Davis: The position of the federal government on these two matters is contained in the Prime Minister's statement to the house on federal-provincial arrangements as reported in Hansard of April 20, 1964.


GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	What was the average water level for each of the years from 1955 to 1963 inclusive on lakes Huron, St. Clair, and Erie?
2.	What was the average annual rate of precipitation in the upper great lakes area for each of the years from 1955 to 1963 inclusive?
3.	What is the minimum depth of the channel between lake Huron and lake St. Clair, and when was the last significant change?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: 1. The yearly mean levels of lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie, in feet above the international great lakes datum (1955), as recorded at the Canadian hydrographic service gauges at Goderich, Tecumseh and Port Colborne, which are considered representative for each lake are as follows:
		Lake	Lake Erie
Lake Huron	St. Clair	(PortYear	(Goderich)	(Tecumseh)	Colborne)1955	579.10	574.11	571.491956	578.16	573.10	570.681957	577.64	572.92	570.441958	577.05	572.05	569.711959	576.78	572.09	569.901960	578.28	573.17	570.66
Lake	Lake Erie
Lake Huron	St. Clair	(PortYear	(Goderich)	(Tecumseh)	Colborne)1961	578.00	573.12	570.631962	577.49	572.50	569.981963	576.51	571.78	569.442.	The average annual rate of precipitation (snow and rain) in the upper great lakes area for each of the years from 1955 to 1963 inclusive was as follows:1955	34.19	inches1956	27.01	inches1957	28.97	inches1958	29.67	inches1959	32.66	inches1960	31.26	inches1961	28.58	inches1962	27.19	inches1963	25.30	inches3.	The minimum depth of the channel between lake Huron and lake St. Clair at mid-April 1964 was 26.4 feet. The last significant change took place in 1962 when the U.S. corps of engineers completed a dredging program to deepen the channel.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION SOLICITORS, ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 681
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: 1. How are the divisions in the Farm Credit Corporation in Alberta allocated to solicitors?
Solicitor	Fees
Arnell, G. E.	$2,465
Decore, J. V.	2,096
Holmes, J. K.	3,250
MacDonell, C. A.	2,085
MacNaughton, F. R.	2,105
Maddison, H. C. B.	2,120
Moshansky, V. P.	2,240
Rennie, G. R.	1,130
Yanosik, C.	2,180
3.	(a) and (b). A solicitor was appointed at Westlock in accordance with the principles outlined in (1) and it was not considered necessary to appoint another solicitor at Barrhead, which is only about 26 miles from Westlock.
Farmers borrowing from the corporation may select any solicitor of their choice for their own share of the legal work with respect to their loans. The corporation's share of the legal work with respect to loans in the Barrhead area is attended to by the corporation's solicitor at Westlock, rather than at Edmonton.
Questions
2.	Who are the solicitors at present and how much has been paid to them in the past year?
3.	For what reason has no solicitor been appointed at Barrhead, Alberta, and (a) has the government been unable to find lawyers there with the necessary qualifications to act on behalf of the corporation (b) has the corporation considered the fact that it requires farmers in that area to drive 180 miles into the city of Edmonton to have their legal work done?


Harry William Hays: 1. After consideration of the volume and distribution of its lending operations in Alberta, the corporation appointed solicitors at a number of centres throughout the province to do legal work with respect to loans in the area surrounding such centres. In determining the number and location of solicitors, the corporation has endeavoured to provide satisfactory geographical distribution, with each solicitor receiving a sufficient volume of business to become thoroughly familiar with procedures and requirements, and to encourage him to give a measure of priority to the corporation's work, so that loans would be disbursed to farmers as quickly as possible.
2.	Fees payable to solicitors for processing loans are paid by the borrowers, either directly or from the proceeds of the loan, in accordance with a tariff of fees set by the corporation. The present solicitors, and the amount of fees paid to each, on behalf of the borrowers, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964, are as follows:
Solicitor	Fees
Broughton, R. D.	Nil
Catonio, A. P.	Nil
Chamberlain, L. C.	Nil
Crerar, D. C.	Nil
Fowler, J. W.	Nil
Gulak, B. J.	Nil
Knaut, G. R.	Nil
Lagasse, J. L.	Nil
MacNaughton, D. P.	Nil
Medhurst, D. H.	Nil
Turner, W. O.	Nil
White, W. G.	Nil


EXPENDITURES ON BUTTER AND MILK SUBSIDIES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Since 1954, what losses have been incurred by the federal government in connection with the sale, purchase, conversion, storage and transportation of butter and derivatives including milk powder and butter oil in (a) Canada (b) Ontario (c) Quebec and, (d) the county of Shefford?
2.	How much money has the federal government spent in (a) Canada (b) Ontario (c) Quebec and, (d) the county of Shefford, as a result of the 25 cent per cwt. milk subsidy, since the establishment of that subsidy?
3.	How much money has the federal government spent in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec, and (c) the county of Shefford, as a result of the 12 cent per pound producers' subsidy?

Questions


Harry William Hays: 1. (a) $103,681,642 (to December 31, 1963); (b), (c) and (d) detail is not available by provinces and municipalities.
2.	(a) $48,061,173.92 (to March 31, 1964);
(b)	$22,987,077.85 (to March 31, 1964); (c)
$22,531,738.74 (to March 31,	1964);	(d)
$5,469,043.88 (to March 31, 1964).
3.	(a)	$21,154,736.53;	(b)	$31,913,061.23;
(c)	$2,759,887.37.


JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many juvenile offenders are now in federal penitentiaries?
2.	In how many cases did the court have presentence recommendations from social workers, probation officers, psychiatrists, etc.?
3.	What facilities, if any, are there for segregation of these juveniles from the adult inmates?


Guy Favreau: 1. Nine (survey dated 31 December, 1963).
2.	This information is not available within the department.
3.	Although there are no special facilities for the segregation of juveniles, they are detained in young offenders' section or are sent to young offenders' institutions.


PSYCHOLOGISTS, PHYSICIANS, ETC. EMPLOYED IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: How many of the psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians and dentists, employed by the federal government work full time at the penitentiaries and, of those who work part time, how many hours per week does each work in the penitentiaries?


Guy Favreau: Dentists, part time	3
Contract	5
Physicians, full time	1
Part time	3
Contract	7
Psychiatrists, part time	8
Contract	2
Psychologists, full time	14
Part time	2
Physicians and dentists, part time, work 15 hours per week. Those employed on a contract basis work full time.
Psychiatrists and psychologists, part time, work 15 hours per week while those on con-
[Mr. Bondeau.l
tract are employed on an arrangement prepared to meet the needs of the institution concerned.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates of federal penitentiaries are now receiving training which is recognized by provincial and federal apprenticeship boards?
2.	How many vacancies are there at present for vocational training instructors and school teachers in the various penitentiaries, and in what institutions do these vacancies exist?
3.	How many hours does an inmate actually spend in vocational training shop per day, excluding taking counts and movement to and from place of training?


Guy Favreau: 1. Seven hundred and forty two inmates.
2.	Vacant Positions
Vocational
Staff		Teachers
Dorchester penitentiary	2	0Springhill institution	0	0St. Vincent de Paul pen. St. Vincent de Paul ind.	0	2annex	4	0Federal training centre	6	0Leclerc institution	4	0Valley field institution	0	0Kingston penitentiary	0	0Prison for women	0	0Collin's Bay penitentiary	3	0Joyceville institution	0	1Manitoba penitentiary	0	0British Columbia penit'ry	3	0Saskatchewan penitentiary	1	0William Head institution	0	0Mountain prison	0	0Matsqui institution	0	0Totals	23	3
3. From 6| to 7|- hours per day.


QUALIFICATIONS OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING INSTRUCTORS IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: What qualifications are required by the vocational training instructors and industrial instructors who are employed by the penitentiaries?


Guy Favreau: Qualifications for vocational instructors-academic standing equivalent to high school graduation with preference to graduates from recognized technical school; proof of completion of apprenticeship and at least five years' experience in the particular trade.
Qualifications for industrial instructors- minimum of grade X education, apprenticeship or equivalent; at least five years' jour-

Questions
neyman's experience in the trade; some experience in a supervisory or administrative capacity.


COST OF ALTERATIONS, TELEVISION STATIONS CBWT AND CBWFT
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	What is the total estimated cost for the combined move, change of power video and audio, and change of channels for television stations CBWT and CBWFT?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the move, and what tenders have been let?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the new antenna, and what tenders have been let giving name of successful bidder and amounts?
4.	How many tenders were received, from whom and what were the amounts?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the building, what tenders have been let giving name of successful bidder and amount?
6.	How many tenders were received, from whom and what were the amounts?
7.	Is the work proceeding on schedule?
8.	When is it expected that the new service will go into operation?
9.	Will this changeover improve television reception for the interlake area of Manitoba and, if not, how soon can one expect action to be taken to bring about this much needed improvement?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	$1,167,350.
2.	Only item to be moved is existing CBWT transmitter which will become CBWFT. Cost of moving this included in contract for new transmitter for CBWT, which has been awarded.
3.	The antenna is included in the contract for the new CBWT transmitter and moving the existing CBWT transmitter. This contract was awarded to RCA Victor Co. Ltd. under order in council PC 1963-4/960 of June 27th, 1963 and is in the amount of $479,069.
4.	Tenders were received from: Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.; Canadian Marconi Company; Northern Electric Co. Ltd.; RCA Victor Co. Ltd. Some submitted more than one proposal and the amounts were: $455,855; $499,812; $560,476; $569,334; $581,335; $605,750; $612,876. Lowest not acceptable as it produced only 81 kw ERP (effective radiated power) as opposed to specified 100 kw for CBWT. Next lowest accepted and reduced to $479,069 as a result of some technical changes.
5.	Estimated cost of building, $78,500. Contract for building awarded to Rowland Clay-don & Co. Ltd. in the amount of $81,284.
6.	Four tenders received, from: Commonwealth Construction Co. Ltd.; Pearson Construction Co. Ltd.; Rowland Claydon & Co. Ltd.; Surety Construction Co. Ltd. The amounts were:	$81,284;	$82,810;	$87,263;

7.	Yes.
8.	October 1964.
9.	It is anticipated that some areas of the interlake region will receive an improved service, but it is not possible to guarantee reception in specific areas. The corporation intends to conduct a survey of reception in the area following the completion of the proposed changes. The results of this survey will be used to determine what action if any should be taken.


DISMISSAL OF POSTMISTRESS, RIVIERE AU RENARD, QUE.
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Does the Post Office Department intend to dismiss Miss Hattie English as postmistress at Riviere au Renard, Quebec and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Has an inquiry been held on the alleged reasons for such a dismissal and, if so, will a report of the inquiry be tabled in the house?
3.	For how many years has this person held the position of postmistress at the abovementioned location?
4.	Was the inquiry, if any. conducted by the civil service commission?

Answer: 1. Yes, the Post Office Department advised Miss Hattie English that she would be dismissed as postmistress at Riviere au Renard for violating section 61 of the Civil Service Act.
2.	Yes, by a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act. The findings of the commissioner's report show that Miss English indulged in political activities. The report will be tabled if the house so orders.
3.	Twenty years.
4.	See No. 2.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION SOLICITORS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Rapp: 1.	How many solicitors have been appointed to the Farm Credit Corporation for the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these solicitors?
3.	How many of these solicitors were appointed prior to April 8, 1963 and, what are their names and addresses?
4.	How many of these solicitors were appointed after April 8, 1963 and, what are their names and addresses?


Harry William Hays: 1. 20.
2. Bilinski, Rudolph S., Humboldt; Conroy and Son, J. N., North Battleford; Dielschneider, P. J., Melville; Donnelly, Polley and Krueger, Swift Current; C. L. B., Estey Q.C., Saskatoon; Gale, J. N., Melfort; Goodall, W. J., Regina; Grant, Lloyd L., Swift Current; Harradence J. H. C., Prince Albert; Johnson, F. W., Regina; MacDonald, A., Rosetown; MacLean R. A., Gravelbourg; MacLean, R. A.,

Questions
Assiniboia; Maher, John H., North Battleford; McKercher, R. H., Saskatoon; Milliken, J. D., Yorkton; Noble, G. E., North Battleford; Paulson, Walter, Wynyard; Shepherdson, W. J. E., Estevan; Vancise, W. J., Regina.
3.	Bilinski, Rudolph S., Humboldt; MacLean, R. A., Assiniboia; Noble, G. E., North Battleford; Paulson, Walter, Wynyard.
4.	Conroy and Son, J. N., North Battleford; Dielschneider P. J., Melville; Donnelly, Polley and Krueger, Swift Current; C. L. B., Estey, Q.C., Saskatoon; Gale, J. N., Melfort; Goodall, W. J., Regina; Grant, Lloyd L., Swift Current; Harradence, J. H. C., Prince Albert; Johnson, F. W, Regina; MacDonald, A., Rosetown; MacLean, R. A., Gravelbourg; Maher, John H., North Battleford; McKercher, R. H., Saskatoon; Milliken, J. D., Yorkton; Shepherdson, J. D., Estevan; Vancise, W. J., Regina.


TENDERS FOR R.C.M.P. AUTOMOBILES, BRANDON, MAN.
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the R.C.M.P., Brandon detachment, requested tenders for new automobiles this year?
2.	What firms have been Invited to tender?
3.	What firms were invited to tender on R.C.M.P. vehicles in Brandon during the years 1957 to 1963?


Guy Favreau: 1. Yes, for one automobile.
2.	All bona	fide dealers representing
Chrysler Canada Limited, Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, and General Motors Products of Canada Limited.
3.	1957: Victoria Motors Limited, Brandon,
Man.;	Western	Motors	Limited,	Brandon,Man.;	Binkley	Motors	Limited,	Mrandon,Man.;	Canadian	Motors	Limited,	Brandon.
Man.
1958: Wilton Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Canadian Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Binkley Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Western Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Brandon Automobiles, Brandon, Man.; McCulloch's Automobiles, Brandon, Man.
1959:	Wilton	Motors	Limited	Brandon,
Man.; Canadian Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Binkley Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Western Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Brandon Automobiles, Brandon, Man.
Man.;
Man.;
Man.;
Man.
1961:
Man.;
Man.;
Man.,
Man.
Wilton
Canadian
Binkley
Western
Wilton
Canadian
Binkley
Western
Motors
Motors
Motors
Motors
Motors
Motors
Motors
Motors
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Limited,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
Brandon,
1962: Wilton Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Canadian Motors Limited, Brandon,
[Mr. Hays.l
Man.; Binkley Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Western Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.
1963: Wilton	Motors	Limited,	Brandon,Man.;	Canadian	Motors	Limited,	Brandon,Man.;	Binkley	Motors	Limited,	Brandon,Man.;	Western	Motors	Limited,	Brandon,
Man.; Brandon Automobiles, Brandon, Man.; Wheat Motors Limited, Brandon, Man.; Don Gamble Limited, Brandon, Man.


* GREAT LAKES
Mr. Smith: In view of the low water levels in the great lakes, are any investigations or plans being undertaken by the government to ascertain the need for emergency dredging in the harbours of the great lakes to assist commercial shipping this summer?


Mr. McWilliam:: Yes, particularly at harbours in lake Huron. Sounding surveys have been carried out at a number of commercial harbours and more are to be done. These are to be examined to determine to what extent dredging will provide practical solutions.


PENITENTIARY CUSTODIAL STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is remunerative recognition given to professional penitentiary staff who have qualifications exceeding the minimum requirements of the penitentiary service?
2.	Are there monetary incentives provided for custodial staff in our penitentiaries to improve their education and training for greater proficiency in job performance?
3.	Do all custodial officers in our correctional institutions receive training in the behavioural sciences by qualified professional staff?
4.	Does the federal government contemplate the provision of training grants and bursaries for its employees in the field of correction and welfare in view of the fact that moneys are now made available to the provinces for similar training in these fields?


Guy Favreau: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Basic instruction in behavioural sciences is included in the training program for custodial officers.
4.	This matter is under active consideration at this time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS, RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What was the number of appeals to the council of referees from claimants to the unemployment insurance commission office at Riviere du Loup in 1963?
2.	How many decisions, out of the number of appeals, were amended?
3.	How many decisions were maintained?
4.	What was the amount overpaid to claimants who were not qualified according to the provisions of the act?

5.	What was the number of claimants disqualified from receiving benefits for voluntarily leaving employment?
6.	What was the number of claimants disqualified from receiving benefits for refusing to accept employment offered?
7.	What was the total number of unemployed claimants at the Riviere du Loup office of the commission in 1963?
8.	What are the results to date of negotiations started by the Canadian government representatives with a view to concluding an agreement with American authorities, aimed at qualifying Canadian workers for unemployment benefits in American territory, particularly in the states of Maine and New Hampshire?
9.	How many workers 45 years of age or over have been employed within the district covered by the national employment office of Riviere du Loup, under the program for the encouragement of the employment of older workers?
10.	Which employers in that area benefited from the program?
11.	Has the government studied the possibility of extending the period during which such older workers can be hired beyond March 31, 1964?
12.	What were the conclusions of the study made by the labour department on the advisability of extending the period of winter works until May 30 in areas having a severe climate?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. 518.
2.	84.
3.	434.
4.	This information is not available.
5.	431.
6.	75.
7.	The number of active claimants on the last day of each of the months named, was as follows: January, 5,630; February, 6,764; March, 6,840; April, 5,349; May, 1,193; June, 721; July, 575; August, 519; September, 512; October, 843; November, 1,452; December, 3,377.
8.	Negotiations have been carried on over a long period with the states of Maine and New Hampshire, with a view to establishing reciprocal arrangements with them respecting unemployment insurance as has been done with almost all the other states. Toward the end of 1963 the employment security commission of the state of Maine informed the government that it is not prepared to enter into such an arrangement and it is understood there is no disposition on the part of New Hampshire to do so either.
9.	Statistics on this program are only available on a provincial basis. 407 workers aged 45 and over were employed, under the program in the province of Quebec, as at March 31, 1964.
10.	Names of employers are not available.
11.	The program was initiated on an experimental basis. The results of the program will take a number of months to evaluate.
Questions
12.	That an extension beyond April 30, 1964 was not warranted as a result of climatic conditions.


LOCAL SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, NANAIMO, B.C.
Mr. Priiiie: 1.	Is there an installation known as "The local seat of government" at or near Nanaimo, B.C.?
2.	Was this established under the Emergency Measures Act?
3.	Is this installation manned at all times and, if so, how many persons are on duty and what is their rank and authority?


Mr. Drury:: Emergency measures organization.
1.	There is no installation by that name at or near Nanaimo. There is, however, a regional emergency government headquarters near Nanaimo to provide facilities in an emergency for representatives of both the federal and provincial governments.
2.	There is no act with this title. The regional emergency government headquarters was built as part of the federal government's program for the decentralization of government in the event of an emergency.
3.	Because the installation of equipment is still proceeding this headquarters is not yet manned. The Department of National Defence makes provision for the necessary security arrangements while this work is in progress.


BUSINESSES ESTABLISHED IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Stenson: Of the 34 manufacturing businesses that have been established in Canada in designated areas, how many have established in (a) each province, (b) Windsor, Ontario (c) Brantford, Ontario?
Answer: Of the 34 new businesses which are being established in Canada with the declared intention of benefiting from the designated area tax incentives program, the
breakdown is as follows:
(a)	Provincial
Alberta-British Columbia	1
New Brunswick	2
Nova Scotia	3
Ontario	17
Quebec	11
Total	34
(b)	Windsor, Ontario, 2
(c)	Brantford, Ontario, 10.


*NAME FOR C.B.C. HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Chretien: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation chosen a name for its new headquarters building in the city of Ottawa?
2.	Has the corporation given thought to naming it after John F. Kennedy, the assassinated president

Questions
of the United States, a public figure greatly admired by Canada's youth?
3.	If not, will the corporation consider this suggestion?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. It is called the C.B.C. Building- L'Edifice Radio Canada.
2.	The suggestion was considered but not accepted for the following reasons: The building is situated on Confederation Heights, the title and purpose of which are commemorative of the beginnings of Canadian nationhood and independence. The C.B.C. itself arose out of a Canadian need, the need to make the art and science of broadcasting help the cause of Canadian nationhood. The late President Kennedy was a great American, admired, respected and deeply mourned in this country. But it would appear to be inappropriate to use his name in the title of the head office building of a Canadian corporation created to provide Canadians with a national broadcasting service which is distinctively Canadian.
3.	See 2 above.


DOMINION OBSERVATORY IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is it the intention to establish a new dominion observatory in western Canada, and especially in either the provinces of Alberta or British Columbia and, if so, has a decision been reached as to a specific locality?
2.	What are the essential conditions which go to determine a suitable location?
3.	What would be the estimated cost of constructing such an observatory, and how long would it take?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is presently studying a proposal put forward by the dominion observatory to build a large optical telescope of at least 150 inches in diameter, in that region of the country best suited to astronomical observations. If constructed, it is planned that this new equipment would be available on equitable terms to astronomers from every province of Canada. The specific site of the proposed telescope has not yet been chosen. However, the requirement for high altitude has limited the search to the mountainous regions of the country and more particularly to the southern parts of British Columbia and Alberta.
2. The site of a large optical telescope must be high enough to be above local dust and disturbed air (usually 6,000 to 7,000 feet). It must be in a region not subject to rapidly moving weather fronts, to great extremes of temperature, and to much auroral activity, and it must be well away from industrial development and large population centres. Low rainfall and clear skies are essential as

well as steady and transparent air. These factors, however, serve only to limit the search and final selection must be made on the basis of optical tests.
3.	The capital cost of such an observatory is estimated to be $9,671,000 spread over a period of six to seven years.


REVISION OF GRAIN GRADING METHOD
Mr. Rapp: Is a re-examination of Canada's grain-grading system being made with a view to bringing it into line with grain grading procedures in other countries and, if so, when is it likely that such a revised grain grading method will be introduced?


Harry William Hays: Inasmuch as Canada's grain grading system is acknowledged to be superior there is no consideration being given to bringing it into line with grading procedures in other countries. However, with the rapidly changing technology in the baking industry in consuming countries, which require somewhat different qualities in the grain that goes into the end product than heretofore, it is felt that a careful and thorough examination of all that is involved in grading grain, particularly wheat, is desirable. Consideration is at present being given to undertaking such a study.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	How much money has been paid to the province of Alberta under the hospital construction grants program in each of the past ten years?
2.	In the past three years, what amount in construction grants has been paid to the province of Alberta for auxiliary hospitals?
3.	What is the location of each hospital and the amount of money spent on each hospital under the hospital construction grants program in each of the past five years?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. 1954-55, $807,646; 1955-56, $977,193; 1956-57, $861,673; 1957-58, $629,169;
1958-	59, $1,139,342; 1959-60, $402,333; 1960-61,
$322,083;	1961-62,	$1,328,445;	1962-63,
$1,694,021; 1963-64, $1,837,110.
2.	$1,854,250.
3.	The amount of money spent on each hospital in Alberta under the hospital construction grants in each of the fiscal years
1959-	63 and their location can be found in the following public accounts of Canada: (a) 1959-60 part II V-16 & V-17; (b) 1960-61 section 23 pages 23.17 & 23.18; (c) 1961-62 section 23 pages 23.35 & 23.36; (d) 1962-63 section 23 pages 23.35 & 23.36.
For the fiscal year 1963-64, the following funds were spent for hospitals in Alberta under the hospital construction grants:

Questions
Expenditure
Name and Location	1963-64

Red Deer municipal hospital, Red
Deer	32,542
Grey House Guild auxiliary hospital,
Edmonton	50,000
Drayton Valley municipal hospital,
Drayton Valley	3,750
Willingdon general hospital, Willingdon	14,667
Wetaskiwin municipal hospital,
Wetaskiwin	32,333
Royal Alexandra hospital, Edmonton 308,000 Providence hospital, High Prairie 38,667 Vulcan municipal hospital, Vulcan 5,167 Provincial mental institute, Edmonton 36,750 Provincial training school for mental
defectives, Red Deer	19,778
Innisfail municipal hospital, Innisfail 4,500 Vermilion River auxiliary hospital,
Lloydminster	25,000
The Dr. Dan MacCharles auxiliary hospital, Medicine Hat	50,000
Coronation municipal hospital,
Coronation	3,750
Dr. A. E. Kennedy auxiliary hospital,
Stettler	30,000
Wainwright-Provost auxiliary
hospital, Wainwright	75,000
Smoky Lake municipal hospital,
Smoky Lake	47,625
St. Michael's general hospital, Lethbridge	46,333
Calgary Foothills provincial general
hospital, Calgary	62,250
Fort MacLeod municipal hospital, Fort
MacLeod	9,000
Barrhead-Thorhill-Westlock auxiliary
hospital, Westlock	75,000
Provost municipal hospital, Provost 12,000 Breton general hospital, Breton	57,125
Bashaw general hospital, Bashaw	57,125
Border Counties general hospital, Milk River	57,125
Stony Plain general hospital, Stony Plain	57,125
Killam general hospital, Killam	51,500
Flagstaff-Beaver auxiliary hospital,
Killam	75,000
Expenditure
Name and Location	1963-64

Red Deer auxiliary hospital, Red
Deer	200,000
Calgary auxiliary hospital (Glenmore
Park auxiliary hospital), Calgary 300,000


POST OFFICE, LITTLE BLACK RIVER INDIAN RESERVE, MAN.
Mr. Slogan: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the residents of Little Black River Indian reserve requesting the establishment of a post office and, if so, will a post office be established on this reserve by the Post Office Department?
2.	When will applications be called for the appointment of postmaster?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. Yes, a petition containing 45 names and a band resolution have been received. A survey is being carried out to determine if the establishment of a post office is justified.
2. The survey will be completed as quickly as possible. If the establishment of a post office is warranted, the question of selecting the postmaster will then be dealt with.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Siarr: Under the municipal winter works program (a) how many applications were received (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (b) how many applications were accepted (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (c) how many applications were rejected, pending or withdrawn (i) at April 17, 1964	(ii)	at	April	17,	1963	(d)	what	was	theestimated total cost of projects (i) at April 17, 1964	(ii)	at	April	17,	1963	(e)	what	was	theestimated total direct payroll cost of projects (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (f) what was the estimated cost of projects during period of program (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (g) what was the estimated direct payroll cost of projects during period of program (i) at April 17, 1964	(ii)	at	April	17,	1963	(h)	what	was	the
percentage of payroll cost to total cost during period of program (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (i) what was the estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (j) what was the estimated number of men to be hired during period of program (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (k) what was the estimated man days work to be provided during period of program (i) at April 17, 1964 (ii) at April 17, 1963 (1) what was the number of participating local authorities (i) at April 17, 1964, (ii) at April 17, 1963?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-CANADA
[Stage Direction]
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1963-64 Cumulative Report Week Ending April 17, 1964
Canada	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	Yukon	N.W.T.	Indian BandsApplications received	7,343	645	749	1,069	308	1,340	2,723	169	53	83	104	i	25	74Applications accepted	7,244	641	749	1,056	301	1,329	2,664	169	51	81	104	i	25	73Applications rejected, pending or withdrawn	99	4	0	13	7	11	59	0	2	2	0	0	0	1Estimated total cost of projects	387,982	28,767	26,975	19,016	32,709	115,138	157,236	3,282	1,471	1,170	1,798	5	87	328Estimated total direct payroll cost of projects	125,677	11,219	8,351	6,765	9,243	30,808	56,339	1,041	420	490	690	3	80	228Estimated cost of projects during period of program.	276,310	23,091	21,498	14,361	16,986	73,703	120,453	2,208	1,344	1,088	1,159	4	87	328Estimated direct payroll cost of projects during period of program	96,662	9,468	6,854	5,371	5,233	19,151	48,118	845	364	466	481	3	80	228Percentage of payroll cost to total cost during period of program	35.0	41.8	31.9	37.2	30.8	25.9	39.9	38.2	27.1	42.8	41.5	75.0	91.9	69.5Estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs	51,197	4,791	3,431	2,616	2,626	9,801	26,517	488	201	280	288	2	40	116Estimated number of men to be hired during period of program	161,360	7,777	11,073	14,692	5,020	20,002	95,512	1,871	564	1,440	1,801	10	298	1,297Estimated man-days work to be provided during period of program	
6,721,176	495,563	453,373	408,026	329,994	1,059,224	3,764,104	72,125	27,001	36,178	47,355	126	5,302	22,805Participating local authorities	2,734	150	209	516	76	349	1,182	71	23	43	47	1	14	53
N.B.-Coat figures shown in thousands of dollars.
2712	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-CANADA MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1962-63 Cumulative Report Week Ending April 19, 1963
Canada	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	Yukon	N.W.T.	Indian BandsApplications received	7,543	759	883	1,422	334	1,466	2,181	167	56	54	113	i	22	85Applications accepted	7,477	756	880	1,412	322	1,461	2,152	164	56	53	113	i	22	85Applications rejected, pending or wit hdrawn	66	3	3	10	12	5	29	3	0	1	0	0	0	0Estimated total cost of projects	377,337	30,832	32,093	19,774	20,869	123,415	141,586	2,811	1,547	652	3,370	7	42	339Estimated total direct payroll cost of projects	112,299	11,605	9,944	6,469	5,292	32,737	43,349	933	456	183	1,048	3	38	242Estimated cost of projects during period of program.	279,700	27,237	27,391	14,511	11,559	81,692	110,751	2,422	1,071	649	2,040	7	42	328Estimated direct payroll cost of projects during period of program	86,768	10,482	8,707	4,938	3,140	21,259	35,952	826	301	180	700	3	38	242Percentage of payroll cost to total cost during period of program	31.0	38.5	31.8	34.1	27.3	26.0	32.5	34.1	28.1	27.7	34.3	42.8	90.5	73.8Estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs	42,977	5,220	4,248	2,468	1,565	10,557	17,774	413	151	90	350	1	19	121Estimated number of men to be hired during period of program	133,455	9,079	13,251	17,584	4,614	21,779	60,784	1,633	596	659	1,804	5	259	1,408Estimated man-days work to be provided during period of program	
5,	879,597	573,889	574,347	390,552	216,979	1,251,689	2,661,058	70,329	28,201	17,420	64,673	110	2,590	27,760Participating local authorities	2,588	150	227	558	84	378	959	53	28	33	44	1	10	63
N.B.-Cost figures shown in thousands of dollars.

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 813
Mr. Siarr:: 1.	How many completed their training under the retraining of unemployed workers plan during the year 1963?
2.	How many completed their training under the retraining of unemployed workers plan during the year 1962?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. 32,825 persons were enrolled under program 5, training for unemployed, in 1963, 17,627 persons completed their training that year and 9,928 persons were still in training at the end of that year.
2. 27,895 persons were enrolled under program 5, training for the unemployed, in 1962, 13,753 persons completed their training that year, 7,778 persons were still in training at the end of the year.


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, WEYBURN, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	When was a survey last made in the city of Weybum by the Post Office Department with a view to implementing letter carrier service?
2.	What was the result of that survey?
3.	When is it expected that letter carrier service will be commenced?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. The last survey was in January 1964.
2.	It indicated that there were 2,375 calls available for letter carrier delivery service.
3.	When the city has developed to the extent that there are 2,500 available calls in a compact area.


TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Mr. Laprise: Has the Minister of National Revenue instructed taxation offices to disregard the regulation entitling taxpayers to claim a deduction not exceeding 10 per cent of their income for charitable donations?


Mr. Mcllraith:: No. Offices of the taxation division are instructed to allow claims for donations made to charitable organizations to the extent permitted by the Income Tax Act.


JAPANESE TRADE FAIR
Mr. Enns: Since the U.S.A., Australia, Italy, and West Germany, are participating in the international trade fair at Osaka, Japan this spring, for what reason is Canada not taking part in this fair?
Answer: In recent years there has been some liberalization of imports to Japan in a number of commodity groups. As a result new opportunities have opened for the sale of Canadian manufactured products, making it possible for the government to resume participation in the Japanese international trade fair which is held alternately in Osaka and Tokyo.

However, because Canada's trade fair program is planned approximately 18 months in advance, it was impractical to schedule a Canadian exhibit before next year when the fair will be held in Tokyo.


EXTENSION TO CHARLES CAMSELL HOSPITAL, EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a definite date been set for the calling of tenders for the extension to the Charles Cam-sel hospital in Edmonton, Alberta and, if so, what is this date, and what is the date of closing of the tender period?
2.	Assuming usual procedures, what would be the anticipated date of commencement of work in the light of the answer to part 1?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. No. The department understands that the consultant architects are now completing working drawings and specifications which will be submitted to the Department of Public Works for incorporation into tender documents.
2. Not known at this time.


FLOODING OF HISTORIC SITE, MEDUCTIC, N.B.
Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleton):
1.	Is the historic site of Meductic, New Brunswick, in Carleton county to be flooded and thus destroyed by the construction of the Mactaquac dam?
2.	Has the report of a departmental archeologist been secured relative to the effect of said dam on the archeological treasures considered by experts to be available by excavation and intensive search?
3.	Has the approval of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada been sought in connection with the construction?


Mr. Laing:: 1. Yes.
2.	Excavation of Fort Meductic is to be undertaken this summer by a professional team of archeologists under contract to the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission. An intensive survey of the proposed reservoir to be created by the dam will also be made before the land is flooded in 1966. Officials of the historic sites division of the national parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and of the human history branch of the national museum of Canada are helping to arrange both programs.
3.	No; the historic sites and monuments board has no jurisdiction over the site.


BRITISH COLUMBIA PHARMACY ACT BY-LAW
Mr. Mather: Has the Department of Justice (or government) received a petition calling for an investigation of by-law 44(7) of the pharmacy act as enacted by order in council by the government of British Columbia and, if so, what action is being taken on the petition?


Mr. Macdonald:: Yes. The information
received is being considered by the director of investigation and research, Combines Investigation Act, to determine whether the situation is such as to warrant formal inquiry under the act. Since the letter was received, however, it has been confirmed that a private action has been instituted in the supreme court of British Columbia challenging the validity of the above regulations or by-laws and the director will of course have to take note that the matter is at present sub judice.


C.B.C. BUILDING SITE, TORONTO
Mr. Moreau: 1.	Did representatives of the city of Toronto meet with the Secretary of State on February 5, and other cabinet members to discuss an alternate site for the C.B.C. rather than the site already acquired in York-Scarborough?
2.	Was it understood that the city of Toronto was to have six weeks to prepare a proposal to the government for consideration?
3.	Have any such proposals been received and, if not, will the C.B.C. now proceed with the Don Mills site?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	The representatives of the city of Toronto were asked to prepare and submit their proposals to the C.B.C. for consideration.
3.	I am informed by the C.B.C. that consultations with the city of Toronto representatives are continuing.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amounts has the federal government collected in the province of Quebec in 1962, in sales tax, income tax, customs duties, excise tax and from other sources?
2.	What amounts has the federal government spent in the province of Quebec in 1962, for public works, welfare, subsidies or for other purposes?


COST OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the total cost of the royal commission on (a) Indian affairs (1946)	(b) Japanese
property losses (1947) (c) veterans' pensions (1947) (d) Fraser valley relief (1948)	(e) prices (1948)
(f) government organization (I960), and (g) the committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act (1961)?
2.	What are the costs to date and projected costs of the royal commission on (a) health services
(1961)	(b) banking and finance (1961) (c) taxation
(1962)	(d) pilotage (1962)?


TOTAL CANADIAN DEBT
Mr. Mather: What is the approximate total of Canadian federal, provincial, municipal and private debt?
Orders for Returns


CANADIAN DEBTS BY CATEGORIES
Mr. Caouette: What are the latest available statistics on (a) Canada's gross debt and net debt (b) the gross debt and	net	debt	of	each province	(c)	the	grossdebt and	net	debt	of	municipalities	(d)	the	grossdebt and	net	debt	of	school boards	(e)	the	grossdebt and	net	debt	of	crown corporations	(f)	debts
owed by Canadians to finance companies for consumer goods (g) debts owed by Canadians for purchases of commercial goods (h) debts owed by Canadians on mortgage loans (i) debts owed by Canadians to banks and credit unions for personal loans (j) debts owed by Canadians to small loan companies (k) debts owed by Canadians for installment purchases (1) total Canadian indebtedness to the United States (m) total Canadian indebtedness to overseas governments (n) gross national product (o) total currency in circulation (p) total of banknotes and coins in circulation?


CONTRACTS TO CANADAIR LIMITED
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1962, have any contracts been awarded to Canadair Limited and, if so, with respect to each such contract, what is (a) its nature (b) its date of completion (c) the amount thereof (d) the number of employees (i) actual or (ii) estimated employed in the fulfilment of the contract (e) the number of man hours of employment (i) actual or (ii) estimated consumed in the fulfilment of the contract (f) the ratio between the number of (i) employees or (ii) man hours of employment and the total number of employees or man hours of employment effective at Canadair?
2.	As a result of government activities, is any increase in employment forecast for Canadair for the next six months and, if so, what is this forecast expressed in terms of employees and man hours, both absolute and as a ratio to the total work force?
3.	Does the government plan any additional steps to ensure that the number of hourly paid employees at Canadair is increased and, if so, what in detail are these steps?


CONTRACTS TO FAIREY AVIATION CO.
Mr. Howard: 1. Since January 1, 1962, have any contracts been awarded by any federal government department of agency to Fairey Aviation Ltd., at Dartmouth, N.S. or Pat Bay, B.C. on a cost plus basis and, if so, what were the contracts for, their amount, and the date each contract was awarded?
2.	What contracts, other than those referred to in part 1, have been awarded by any federal government department or agency to Fairey Aviation Ltd., Dartmouth, N.S. and Pat Bay, B.C. since January 1, 1962, listed by the amount, the date each contract was awarded and the nature of the contract?
3.	If tenders were called what was the name of the unsuccessful company or companies and the amount of each bid?


FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED TO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Mr. Langlois: 1.	From December 1961 to December 1962, how much money has the federal government allocated to university students (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec?
2.	What has been the amount received in the case of each university in 1962 and 1963?

Orders for Returns
3.	What are the specific purposes, if any, of such scholarships or grants?


* LETTERS AND PETITIONS FAVOURING DISTINCTIVE FLAG
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	How many letters and petitions has the government received since April 8, 1963 in favour of a truly distinctive flag for Canada?
2.	How many signatures did these letters and petitions bear?


PRINTING CONTRACTS TO PRIVATE FIRMS
Mr. Latulippe: In 1962-63, how many private firms were awarded contracts or orders by the department of public printing and stationery, and what were the amounts in each case?
Return tabled.


CONTRACTS LET WITHOUT TENDERS
Mr. Boulanger: What is the total amount of all the contracts awarded or orders placed without public tenders, between April 21, 1962 and April 21, 1963, for each individual government department and crown corporation?


CONTRACTS WITH TANDV-RICHARDS ADVERTISING LTD.
Mr. Smith: Has the firm of Tandy-Richards Advertising Limited been hired or given any public relations contract or work by any government agency, crown corporation or government department since April 8, 1963 and, if so, what contracts and at what value?


LEGAL ADVISERS, FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	How many legal advisers were engaged by the Farm Credit Corporation to process loans approved by the corporation prior to April 22, 1963?
2.	How many of these advisers have been replaced since April 22, 1963?
3.	By provinces (a) what were the names and addresses of the legal advisers whose services were discontinued (b) the names and addresses of the advisers appointed to replace each?
Return tabled.


BUTTER STORAGE AND FARM LOANS, LOTBINIERE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caoueite: 

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents forwarded since April 22, 1963, by any member of parliament representing an electoral district in the national capital region, to the Prime Minister, the Minster of Finance, the Secretary of State or any official of these departments or to the civil service commission on the subject of collective bargaining for public servants.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any letters, memoranda or other documents addressed since April 22, 1963 to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Agriculture or any official of these departments by any member of parliament representing an electoral district in the national capital region on the subject of the location of a new headquarters building for the Department of Agriculture or on the subject of the use of the central experimental farm for additional buildings.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between maitre Luc-Gilbert Lessard, of Black lake, Megantic county, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the deputy minister or any officials of his department, since March 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the representative list and/or representative lists of suppliers (now in use) as defined by paragraph 2 (e) (ii) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954 from each department of the government.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Nielsen:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any report made to the governor in council or to the treasury board (since April 8, 1963) pursuant to paragraph 3 (4) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of every report made by any contracting authority as defined in paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations (since April 8, 1963) to the treasury board as required by paragraph 8 of the government contracts regulations.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of every report made by any contracting authority as defined in paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations (since April 8, 1963) to the treasury board as required by paragraph 11 of the government contracts regulations.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing:-
1.	What service contracts have been entered into by or on behalf of the government by any contracting authority as defined by paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954, since April 8, 1963, without the approval of treasury board for engineering, architectural or related or similar services?
2.	Where the amount payable under such contract did not or does not exceed $15,000, (a) by whom was the contract awarded (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) what method was used to select the contractor (d) what factors determined the selection of the contractor (e) what was the amount payable under the contract (f) where tenders were invited, were such tenders invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or lists (g) where tenders were invited, how many were invited and from whom and how many received and from whom in each case (h) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what method was used to select the name or names of those invited to tender (i) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what factors determined the selection of those invited to tender (j) in each case, where was the service to be performed (k) in each case was an opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought by the contracting authority or any person on behalf thereof from any defeated Liberal candidate or any person in any way associated with any Liberal organization in Canada; and, if so, by whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought and from whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation given and in each case was the same verbal or written?
3.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the hire of equipment to be used in or incidental to the execution of a work (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 3 (a)?
4.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for advertising or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case
Motions for Papers
of each such service contract described in the answer to 4 (a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
5.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for transportation services, or the hire or charter of vehicles, vessels or aircraft; (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 5 (a), (i) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed by a common carrier at a rate not in excess of standard rates (ii) where the amount payable under the contract did not exceed $15,000 and the service was or is to be furnished or performed by persons other than common carriers at a rate in excess of standard rates (iii) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed under a charter of hire contract and the amount payable thereunder did not or does not exceed $15,000?
6.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the supply of electricity, gas, water or heat (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 6 (a)?
7.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for stenographic, reporting or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in
7	(a)	where	the	amount	payable under	thecontract did not or	does not	exceed $1,000?8.	(a)	What	is the answer	to (1) above in	the
case of service contracts for maintenance services, including cleaning, road clearing and snow, garbage and waste removal or disposal (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in
8	(a)	where	the	amount	payable under	the
contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
9.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for maintenance and inspection of elevators (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 9 (a) ?
10.	What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the repair, overhaul, and refitting of vehicles, aircraft, and equipment, other than office equipment (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 10 (a)?
11.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of (i) telecommunication services (ii) radio telephone services (iii) the rental of telecommuni-tion equipment (iv) the rental of short or local lines (v) the rental of long lines; (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 11 (a)?
12.	Were any service contracts specified in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, entered into where the amount, rate or other sum payable under the contract exceeded the amount, rate or sum prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations; and, if so, in each case, where such a contract was entered into, what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
13.	What service contracts, the term of which exceeds five years, have been entered into with or without the approval of treasury board and in each case what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
14. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased with the approval of treasury board and, what was the amount of such increase, by whom was it authorized and why was it made?
15. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased without the approval
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
of treasury board and, what was the amount of the increase, by whom was the increase authorized and why was it made?
16.	In the case of service contracts entered into where the amount payable thereunder was increased, in what cases were increases made in excess of the limitations prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations and by what authority were such increases made?
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Lessard (St. Henry):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a representative list of suppliers in use in each department of the government between April 1, 1958, and April 22, 1963, as defined in paragraph (ii) of subsection (e) of section 2 of the government contracts regulations, namely order in council P.C. 1954-1971 of December 16, 1954.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing:
1.	What service contracts have been entered into by or on behalf of the government by any contracting authority as defined by paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954, between April 8, 1959 and April 8, 1963, without the approval of treasury board for engineering, architectural or related or similar services?
2.	Where the amount payable under such contract
did not or does not exceed $15,000, (a) by whom was the contract awarded (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) what method was used to select the contractor (d) what factors determined the selection of the contractor (e) what was the amount payable under the contract (f) where tenders were invited, were such tenders invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or lists (g) where tenders were invited, how many were invited and from whom and how many received and from whom in each case (h) where tenders were	invited	from	a	representative	listor lists, what method was used to select the name or names of those invited to tender (i) where tenders were	invited	from	a	representative	list
or lists, what factors determined the selection of those invited to tender (j) in each case, where was the service to be performed (k) in each case was an opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought by the contracting authority or any person on behalf thereof from any defeated Conservative candidate or any person in any way associated with any Conservative organization in Canada; and, if so, by whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought and from whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation given and in each case was the same verbal or written?
3.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the hire of equipment to be used in or incidental to the execution of a work (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 3(a)?
4.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for advertising or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each

such service contract described in the answer to 4(a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
5.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for transportation services, or the hire or charter of vehicles, vessels or aircraft, (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 5 (a), (i) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed by a common carrier at a rate not in excess of standard rates (ii) where the amount payable under the contract did not exceed $15,000 and the service was or is to be furnished or performed by persons other than common carriers at a rate in excess of standard rates (iii) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed under a charter of hire contract and the amount payable thereunder did not or does not exceed $15,000?
6.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the supply of electricity, gas, water or heat (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 6 (a) ?
7.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the
case of service contracts for stenographic, reporting or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 7	(a)	where	the	amount payable under	the
contract did not or does not exceed $1,000?
8.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the
case of service contracts for maintenance services, including cleaning, road clearing and snow, garbage and waste removal or disposal (b) what is the answer to each of the auestions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 8	(a)	where	the	amount payable under	the
contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
9.	(a) What is	the	answer to (1) above in	thecase	of	service	contracts for maintenance	and
inspection of elevators (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 9 (a)?
10.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the repair, overhaul, and refitting of vehicles, aircraft, and equipment, other than office equipment (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 10 (a)?
11.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of (i) telecommunication services (ii) radio telephone services (iii) the rental of telecommunication equipment (iv) the rental of short or local lines (v) the rental of long lines; (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 11 (a)?
12.	Were any service contracts specified in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, entered into where the amount, rate or other sum payable sum prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations; and, if so, in each case, where such a contract was entered into, what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
13.	What service contracts, the term of which exceeds 5 years, have been entered into with or without the approval of treasury board and in each case what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
14. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased with the approval of treasury board and, what was the amount of such increase, by whom was it authorized and why was it made?
15. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased without the approval of

treasury board and, what was the amount of the increase, by whom was the increase authorized and why was it made?
16.	In the case of service contracts entered into where the amount payable thereunder was increased, in what cases were increases made in excess of the limitations prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations and by what authority were such increases made?
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89-Mr. Mackasey:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing:-
1.	what service contracts have been entered into by or on behalf of the government by any contracting authority as defined by paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954, between June 21, 1957 and April 7, 1959, without the approval of treasury board for engineering, architectural or related or similar services?
2.	Where the amount payable under such contract did not or does not exceed $15,000, (a) by whom was the contract awarded (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) what method was used to select the contractor (d) what factors determined the selection of the contractor (e) what was the amount payable under the contract (f) where tenders were invited, were such tenders invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or lists (g) where tenders were invited, how many were invited and from whom and how many received and from whom in each case (h) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what method was used to select the name or names of those invited to tender (i) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what factors determined the selection of those invited to tender (j) in each case, where was the service to be performed (k) in each case was an opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought by the contracting authority or any person on behalf thereof from any defeated Conservative candidate or any person in any way associated with any Conservative organization in Canada; and, if so, by whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought and from whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation given and in each case was the same verbal or written?
3.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the hire of equipment to be used in or incidental to the execution of a work (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 3(a)?
4.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for advertising or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 4(a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
5.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for transportation services, or the hire or charter of vehicles, vessels or aircraft, (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 5 (a), (i) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed by a common carrier at a rate not in excess of standard rates (ii) where the amount payable under the contract did not exceed $15,000 and the service was or is to be furnished or performed by persons other than common carriers at a rate
Motions for Papers
in excess of standard rates (iii) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed under a charter of hire contract and the amount payable thereunder did not or does not exceed $15,000?
6.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the supply of electricity, gas, water or heat (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 6 (a)?
7.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for stenographic, reporting or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 7 (a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $1,000?
8.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for maintenance services, including cleaning, road clearing and snow, garbage and waste removal or disposal (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 8 (a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
9.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for maintenance and inspection of elevators (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 9 (a)?
10.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the repair, overhaul, and refitting of vehicles, aircraft, and equipment, other than office equipment (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 10 (a)?
11.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of (i) telecommunication services (ii) radio telephone services (iii) the rental of telecommunication equipment (iv) the rental of short or local lines (v) the rental of long lines; (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 11 (a)?
12.	Were any service contracts specified in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, entered into where the amount, rate or other sum payable under the contract exceeded the amount, rate or sum prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations; and, if so, in each case, where such a contract was entered into, what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
13.	What service contracts, the term of which exceeds 5 years, have been entered into with or without the approval of treasury board and in each case what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above?
14. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased with the approval of treasury board and, what was the amount of such increase, by whom was it authorized and why was it made?
15. What service contracts have been entered into where the amount, rate or sum payable thereunder has been increased without the approval of treasury board and, what was the amount of the increase, by whom was the increase authorized and why was it made?
16.	In the case of service contracts entered into where the amount payable thereunder was increased, in what cases were increases made in excess of the limitations prescribed by part III of the government contracts regulations and by what authority were such increases made?
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Howard:
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all briefs, plans, submissions or treatises prepared by staff members at the British Columbia penitentiary since January 1, 1960, regarding drug addiction and treatment thereof and any other penological concepts.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-Mr. Addison:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between Air Terminal Transport Limited of Toronto and the Department of Transport, and also any correspondence between Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Department of Transport that relates to Air Terminal Transport Limited of Toronto.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put might I say that I understand the hon. member would be satisfied to receive copies of the agreements with respect to ground transportation between Air Terminal Transport Limited of Toronto and the Department of Transport and correspondence relating to the negotiation of these agreements. The government would have to take the position that correspondence between T.C.A. and the Department of Transport is privileged, but subject to that reservation the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation of the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Granger:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between June 21, 1957, and April 22, 1963, between any member of the government of Newfoundland and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding additional federal assistance for Indians and Eskimos in Labrador.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Marlineau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents exchanged since the 22nd of April 1963, between the government and any municipality within the national capital area, concerning the possible setting up of a national capital district.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Mariineau:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid 
before this house a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents exchanged between the Canadian government, on the one hand, and the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, on the other hand, since the 22nd of April 1963, concerning the setting up of a national capital district.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Labour or any official of his department, and the government of Quebec, concerning the extension of the winter works period.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. MacRae:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents addressed by the government of Canada to the provincial governments in connection with the proposed student loan fund legislation and any replies thereto.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
FIXING OF DUTIES UNDER CUSTOMS ACT Motion No. Ill-Mr. Moreau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all orders by the Minister of National Revenue since April 18, 1961 under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purpose of fixing duties.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Martineau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all maps, drawn up or deposited with the chief electoral officer or the representation commissioner, pertaining to the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this motion could be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REVOCATION OF PAROLES, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 113-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a list, by name or number, of all paroles revoked in the city of Montreal during the year 1963, giving in each case the grounds for the revocation and the name of the judge involved.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege which I believe affects all members of the house. Appearing on the order paper today is question No. 826, addressed to the Minister of Labour, which reads in part as follows:
1. Up to the present date, how many workers over the age of 45 have been placed in employment in Canada through the offices of the national employment service as a result of the program by which their salaries are supplemented to the maximum of $75 per month out of public funds?
Appearing in the press of this country yesterday under the byline of the Canadian Press is a release in the name of the Minister of Labour, and I will read it in part:
Labour minister MacEachen announced Monday-
That is the day before yesterday.
-that 2,347 job openings were approved under the incentive program whereby the federal government pays a special subsidy to employers hiring and training workers 45 years and older. But by the March 31 deadline for hiring older workers, only 1,811 workers had been put in approved jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the way members have of obtaining information in this house is by means of the order paper. Many of us try assiduously to follow the rules of the house, and in an effort to do so I placed my question on the order paper on April 21. It was there on Monday last. The minister chose to give this information to the press of the country instead of answering the question in the House of Commons. I submit this is a breach of the rules of the house, it is contempt of parliament and in fact it is government by press release.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, I may say that he will wish to revise his grievance when he realizes that the information released to the press on Monday had already been given in the house.


Mr. MacEwan:: No, it had not.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On April 24 the Associate Minister of National Defence, in reply to a supplementary question posed by me which appears on pages 2539 and 2540 of Hansard, stated that his department was doing everything it could to phase out operations at the Point Edward naval base as slowly as possible. He continued by stating:
A ship which was not scheduled to go into the Point Edward naval base has now been directed to
Inquiries of the Ministry
go there in order to be refitted, so that work will be provided for a longer period and we will then be able to phase out more slowly the work at Point Edward naval base.
It has only now come to my attention that the naval vessel to which I presume he referred, H.M.C.S. Swansea, is not at the Point Edward naval base but is at a private shipyard at Sydney where only five employees from the base are employed at the moment. The result of the minister's statement, which was accepted by all the news media in the area to mean that a new refit job was available for this base, has been to promote false hopes and disappointment in the minds of the employees who are already tormented by the fact they are to be without employment in the very near future.
I am not suggesting that the minister deliberately misled the house, the employees and others in the area concerned. However, it is my hope that the hon. gentleman will now correct his grievous error and see that a naval vessel is allocated to this base so the phasing out will be slowed down as he promised, since this government appears to be quite adamant in its stand that this base must close.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I have not had an opportunity of seeing the article to which the hon. member referred. What I said the other day was that in order to extend the work, to phase out the work at Point Edward more slowly, the government had decided to send a ship to the Point Edward naval base which had not been scheduled for that base. I shall be glad to look into this particular matter. I can tell the house that there was certainly no intention to mislead the house. It is a fact that a ship was sent to the Point Edward naval base for repairs that was not scheduled to go there.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct once more to the Minister of Labour a question I asked while he was absent.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received letters from the Quebec minister of municipal affairs as well as from the mayors' and municipalities' association of the province of Quebec as regards the extension of the winter works program in the designated areas, and whether this will result in a change in government policy on this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that this is almost a daily question I can hardly rule it as so pressing and urgent that it needs to be answered at this time. Will the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to keep this question for discussion at ten o'clock tomorrow night.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Now that General Gyani has spoken along the line of questions asked by the opposition, namely that the situation in certain parts of Cyprus is such that it raises serious implications concerning the role of the United Nations force, I ask the minister- we have to get this information from the press, I would point out-whether any action has been taken to do that which we have suggested, that is to give reasonable powers to the United Nations force; particularly because of an Associated Press dispatch which indicates that all the Canadian troops in Cyprus have to do is observe developments and report back to United Nations headquarters or intervene to protect the civilian population if necessary. Is the minister now in a position to give this house more complete and concise information than he has given up to the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman said I gave something to the press which I had not given to the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, he did not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. If he had said that I was going to correct it. General Gyani issued a subsequent statement to that already referred to by my hon. friend. At the conclusion of that statement General Gyani said, and I quote:
It Is my firm belief now that peaceful conditions can be restored and maintained in Cyprus, and we in the United Nations peace force will work relentlessly to bring about active measures to reduce tension and eliminate fear and assist in every way possible toward achieving quiet and peace in the island.
Since the interrogation in this house yesterday there has been a subsiding of incidents in Cyprus. In addition, the secretary general, who is now in Paris conferring on the matter,


has issued a statement and a report to the security council suggesting what course should be taken by the United Nations force in the light of the situation that developed over the week end. I had hoped that we would have the full text of this statement so I could table it in the house today. I expect it will be circulated in the United Nations some time this afternoon. I may say that this statement is partly in response to a conversation I had on Friday last-I know this does not please the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: No, it is ridiculous.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I know it does not please the right hon. gentleman, but the fact is that it is partly in response to a conversation I had with the secretary general last Friday night, conversations which the secretary general has had with certain contributing countries' representatives, as well as talks with representatives of the United Nations, the United States , and other countries. When the text of the secretary general's report is available it will be tabled forthwith. As a matter of fact, I believe with the permission of the house, I should table the statement of General Gyani, dated late yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the tabling of this statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman this question. Has he made representations to the effect that the role of the United Nations force, and I refer particularly to the Canadians, shall not be that of simply a passive policeman but that the force shall undertake remedial and effective action which in their opinion is necessary?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: I have already answered that question twice, yesterday and partly today. I indicated that on Friday last when I saw the secretary general, I told him that in the light of the situation as it was reported to us by our high commissioner in Cyprus, and as reported from other sources, it would seem that the United Nations force was being placed in a difficult position. The secretary general acknowledged this. Because I am concerned about the operations of that force, I am precluded from going any further.
Now, I can say that the secretary general has made a statement in Paris today. His statement is preliminary to a report which he is circulating to the members of the United Nations security council, and that report will be available some time today. I ask my hon. friend to consider his question in the light of that report.


John George Diefenbaker: I have considered the question in the light of the uncertain reports

the hon. gentleman has given this house on all occasions. I will be glad, however, to wait until we receive an authentic statement from General Gyani.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend, but I do know something about the delicacy of this situation. It is not fair to our soldiers; it is not fair to the United Nations; it is not fair to the Canadian people, to say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -that I have given
uncertain reports. I have given reports that were exact and precise. They have to do with a very difficult situation, and I may say to my right hon. friend, the reaction I get-* and I have my appreciation of what reactions can be-is that the right hon. gentleman would do himself more credit by helping the government in a situation such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that last observation deserves an answer, and I simply say to the hon. gentleman that what he has said is bluff, and pompous bluff at that.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnabv-Cocjuillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The latest report to come over the wires indicates that the British ambassador has been instructed to interview the secretary general of the United Nations regarding the inactivity of the United Nations force in Cyprus, and I want to ask the minister two questions to save the trouble of getting up on a supplementary.
First, are similar representations being made by the Canadian government to the secretary general of the United Nations? Second, does the Canadian government share the view that the presence of the United Nations force in Cyprus has effectively deprived the Turkish Cypriots of any outside aid, and therefore it is the responsibility of the United Nations force to provide sufficient protection for Turkish Cypriots?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, the Canadian ambassador saw the secretary general of the United Nations twice on Saturday, and he was in touch three times yesterday with Mr. Ralph Bunche, who was acting in the absence of the secretary general. In addition, he conferred with Mr. Adlai Stevenson on Saturday and again yesterday.
I may say that the United States undersecretary of state for foreign affairs is in Ottawa, and I conferred with him on this matter this morning. I have also been in touch 20220-173
Inquiries of the Ministry with the foreign office in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the actions of the United Nations force in Cyprus, notwithstanding the difficulties, have had a preventive effect. I hope this effect will continue, particularly in the light of the report which we are awaiting from the secretary general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister may have overlooked the second part of my question in which I asked whether the government shared the view that, since the presence of the United Nations force in Cyprus has effectively deprived the Turkish Cypriots of any outside aid, it is the responsibility of the United Nations to provide protection for Turkish Cypriots. Is this view being pressed upon the secretary general of the United Nations?
May I also remind him that yesterday he said Canadian troops were not directly involved in negotiations in the Kyrenia pass, yet a report came in this morning that it was Canadian troops who transmitted the request for the Turkish forces to withdraw, and the rejection was transmitted through the Canadian troops to the Cypriot forces.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, all I can properly do is to indicate that the Canadian government, maintaining a neutral position as a member of the United Nations force, has made representations, through its representative to the United Nations and its high commissioner in Cyprus, along the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. Those representations were perfectly compatible with the desirable neutral position we must maintain.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence, and I may say it is also supplementary to a starred question he answered for me on Monday. Does he consider it fair to provide special allowances to our troops in Cyprus which are not equal to the allowances paid to our troops in the Congo and other overseas areas where they are serving?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it is not my impression that our troops in Cyprus are getting less than our troops in the Congo or anywhere else.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I addressed a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence asking him about the special allowances which were made available in Cyprus as compared with those paid to troops in the Congo, New Guinea

Inquiries of the Ministry and other areas of the world. The associate minister told me there was no difference in the special allowances made available.
However, in the answer he provided to me as reported on page 2590 of Hansard he referred me to the public accounts of Canada, March 31, 1963, section 20, pages 23-25. From this I find that the special allowance for those in the Congo is $100 per month and that for troops in New Guinea it is $90 a month. When I look at the answer the hon. gentleman gave me with regard to the troops in Cyprus I see that the special allowance amounts to $69 a month.
I am pretty mixed up now. Either the minister has given me incorrect information today or he gave me incorrect information on Monday. He certainly gave me incorrect information at some time; and I should like to have the matter cleared up.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows the correct information was that given in the return. I apologize to the hon. member for having led him astray in this sense, that I led him to understand there was no difference in the amount of allowances that was paid. I have subsequently been informed that the special allowance for people serving in the Congo is $100 and the reason for this additional amount of money paid to the people in the Congo is, of course, the difficulty of serving in that very hot country.


Robert Carman Coates: Could I ask a question supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to my other question. I ask the minister, will he give consideration to increasing the amount of the special allowance for troops serving in Cyprus, in view of the great risk they are undertaking at the present time?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That matter will be considered, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED U.S. INFLUENCE ON CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on a press dispatch from Harri-man, New York, on the 25th of this month which reads as follows:
Canadian foreign policy is circumscribed by the need to maintain Washington's good favour, President John W. Holmes of the Canadian institute of international affairs said.
In view of the fact that this gentleman is a prominent official of the external affairs department, would the minister inform the house whether in fact Canadian foreign policy

is circumscribed by the need to maintain Washington's good favour?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman knows that the answer to his question is no. I suggest he read the full text of the speech. He would then see that this particular sentence, isolated from the context, conveys an altogether different meaning.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. When will the government announce the compensation arrangements which are to be made with respect to the 500 air force officers who were recently forced into early retirement?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest there is not that urgency about this question to warrant an answer at this time. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, these men have been waiting for nearly a month for some decision on the question. It is a most urgent one.


Mr. Speaker:: I still think it is my duty to apply the rules, and I do not see the great urgency which would justify it being answered at this time.


Robert Norman Thompson: Then I shall give notice that I wish to raise it on an adjournment debate.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister going to resign, as he said he would do recently in Montreal, or has he had some success in the steps he took to remedy the danger created by the level crossing between Moreau st. and Viau st.?


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to change anything in the statement I made concerning the case referred to by the hon. member. I must tell him that the question is under consideration.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister what delay he has given himself to resign?


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Mr. Pigeon:: Not 30 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was about to rule the question out at the beginning as purely hypothetical, but the minister got in ahead of me.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, with the high degree of absenteeism among the cabinet I do not know to whom I should direct this question, but perhaps the acting minister of national health and welfare would be able to take notice of it, or indicate to the house whether any directions or directives have been issued to or for the Miller Bay hospital near Prince Rupert, to the effect that its bed capacity be reduced and eventually the hospital closed.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me the Chair must point out that if there are a few ministers absent today it is for a very good and sufficient reason.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Also I would like to point out that the question has no sense or degree of urgency that it should be asked at this time. May I suggest the order paper.


Frank Howard: I rise first on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and with great deference to you ask what is this reason that the cabinet ministers are absent.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Perhaps I might deal with this question. As my hon. friend knows, the biannual meeting of the Canadian-United States cabinet ministers is taking place today and three of my colleagues are involved-[DOT]


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, and myself; and I regret to say-


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the
Minister of National Health and Welfare is in hospital.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should explain that the reason for the Chair making that statement was that I had been approached 20220-173i
Inquiries of the Ministry two days ago to loan some rooms, which comes within my jurisdiction, so I had personal knowledge of the fact that several ministers representing the Canadian government would be in conference in room 16.
I therefore spoke with personal knowledge.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I wish to address a question to his parliamentary secretary. Is the hon. gentleman of the opinion that the dairy policy of this government which has resulted in a saving in two years of $9.5 million to the detriment of the dairy farmer is to the advantage of the latter?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like very much to have the views of the parliamentary secretary on this matter, because it is an important question for the dairy farmers of my province.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may change my ruling- and the hon. member may not like this so well-it seems to me that this question is out of order. He is asking for an opinion on a matter of policy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then I should like to discuss this matter at the next opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I had better clear this up now. If the question is out of order, the matter does not arise for discussion at ten o'clock.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that it will distress the farmers of my riding to learn that you have ruled this question out of order.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he, or any member of the government, received advance notice that secretary of state Rusk will be taking up the question of the diversion of water from the Hudson bay and James bay watershed into the great lakes system in order to alleviate the acute shortage of water in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, the secretary of state will be here tomorrow, and it is unreasonable to expect to get the answer by tomorrow, though this is a question which is of considerable interest not only in Canada but in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the importance of the question, but if the hon. member is really disturbed about it surely he could use the telephone and give notice, and perhaps he could get his answer tomorrow.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out that the suggestion Your Honour has made has no practical application, because the secretary of state will be here tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am speaking on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. One at a time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue was on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the two hon. members concerned that the Chair has a duty, too, and if there is to be order in the chamber hon. members should at least give the benefit of the doubt to the Chair. I recognize the Minister of Justice.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Have you ruled that I have lost my right to speak on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I have tried to suggest as politely as possible that the hon. gentleman should put his question on the order paper.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I was pointing out as respectfully as I could that I cannot do this while attaining any useful purpose, because the secretary of state will be here tomorrow. This question was taken up in the United States congress yesterday and today, and because of its urgency and because of the visit tomorrow of the secretary of state I thought I should address my question verbally to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Guy Favreau: think, Your Honour, that the new rules make no exception, and that your rulings ought not to be discussed. The only consequence accepted by the house is that if an hon. member is not satisfied with an answer he may raise the matter as a grievance. He cannot raise points of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In the light of what has been said may I rephrase my question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a general misunderstanding, and in the circumstances I suggest that the hon. member rephrase his question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Then may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will be discussing this important and serious matter of water shortages on the great lakes with the secretary of state of the United States when he meets him tomorrow.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: The secretary of state, Mr. Rusk, will not be at the conference until tomorrow, but I may tell the hon. member that I hope this question will be raised later this afternoon.



PASSAMAQUODDY-CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING FISHERIES PROTECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him what is to be the attitude of the Canadian government in connection with the discussions to take place with United States secretary of the interior Stewart Udall respecting the Passamaquoddy power project. The information that we have in the form of press references is that this matter will be discussed, particularly in regard to fisheries and the like. Would the minister take the house into his confidence?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall be meeting with Mr. Udall later on this afternoon and it is my intention to make it clear to him that, notwithstanding the importance of the development mentioned, we wish to ensure protection for our fisheries.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: In connection with the 'Quoddy talks will the question of Chignecto tidal power also be discussed, so that United States acceptance of future Chignecto power may be a part of any over-all 'Quoddy agreement?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This particular matter has not come to my attention and will not be discussed at this time.


Robert Muir: I had a supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I realize he has had to leave the house, so perhaps I could direct it to the acting minister. Can the hon. gentleman inform the house as to the present state of negotiations between Canada and the United States, as indicated by secretary of the interior Udall, with regard to this country's purchase of

more coal from the United States as a result of increased purchases of power by that country from Canada; and is the minister aware of the danger inherent in these negotiations to the coal mining areas of this country?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will bring this to the attention of the minister.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary or whoever is representing the minister. Is the minister still considering stockpiling uranium in the Cardiff mine? This mine is in my riding, and I am most anxious that this be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. gentleman put his question on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Why did he not decide to lay a charge of spying against the Russian newspaper man Tarasov, instead of merely taking deportation procedures against him?
Also, would the minister tell the house whether the R.C.M.P. are continuing their investigation in order to determine whether or not that newspaper man was a member of a spying network?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs considered, during the investigation, that this case should be solved through the deportation of the person concerned, following activities inconsistent with his status as a correspondent of Izvestia, which is an agency of the Soviet government.
As far as I am concerned, I agree with this method for disposing of this case, in view of all the circumstances.
Consequently, I sincerely hope that all hon. members will understand why it would not be in the public interest for me to comment further on this case.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer the second part of my question?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, because of my responsibility as a minister of the crown, I feel-and in that I agree with my colleagues -that it would not be in the public interest to discuss this case any further.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There is no question of having a public debate. I only want to get some information from the minister, to find out if the R.C.M.P. is carrying out an inquiry to ascertain whether or not there was a spy ring in which that newspaperman might have been involved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the proceedings today the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) raised a question of privilege with respect to answers which he said I had failed to give to the house. I suggested that my hon. friend might wish to modify that complaint-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is already a question of privilege before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is impossible for the Chair to listen to three or four hon. members at the same time. I think the hon. gentleman, out of courtesy and in order to assist the Chair, should at least let me listen to what the Minister of Labour is saying.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, it was to assist the Chair that I rose, because we were already on a question of privilege and I thought the Minister of Labour had not noticed that we were already on a question of privilege when he raised a new one. The Minister of Justice was just rising to answer a question of privilege which had been raised, and I thought, in order to assist the Chair in the orderly conduct of business, it was right that we should hear the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question and as a follow up to the first answer given to the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member is trying to assist the Chair,

Inquiries of the Ministry but I must point out that under our new rules the 30 minute question period on Wednesday has expired. On the other hand, I understand that the Minister of Labour is rising on a question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon the hon. member for York-Sunbury raised a serious question of privilege and alleged that I had released information to the press prior to releasing it to the House of Commons, even though he had a question on the order paper with respect to that information.
This complaint is, of course, quite groundless. The first part of the hon. member's question was answered and the information provided in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) on Monday, April 20, 1964. That same information was not released in the way of a press release until April 27, 1964. It had been given to the house a full week prior to being released to the press. The next two questions asked by my hon. friend, parts 2 and 3, appearing on today's order paper were answered on March 16, 1964, in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr).


Thomas Miller Bell: Why didn't he answer the question?


Howard Russell MacEwan: It is the parliamentary secretary's fault.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Read the answers that were given, and you won't have any trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to all hon. members that it seems to me it is becoming increasingly the habit to rise on questions of privilege which are in fact points of order. A question of privilege concerns, as we all know, the privileges of an hon. member or of all hon. members of the house, and should be raised almost by way of exception. Questions of privilege should not be raised merely for the purpose of making a complaint.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this a point of order or a question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, call that a point of order or a question of privilege but as far as I am concerned I make it a question of privilege.
During the half hour allotted to questions, I rose at least 25 times to ask a question. If, during that half hour in which hon. members

can ask questions, we are to hear only questions put by Conservative members, we will not put up with that and we will fight that standing order with might and main.
We are asking you to be a little more lenient toward hon. members sitting in this corner of the house so that at least once in a while we can ask one question. In fact this afternoon only one member, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was successful in putting one question. No other member sitting at this end of the house was recognized.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I too, for 20 minutes wanted to ask a question, but because of other questions being asked I was not recognized. I raise this matter as a point of order and would ask you, sir, to invoke the rule in respect of all hon. members and let us get on with the other business.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I may say that since the beginning of the question period, I rose, I did gymnastics to catch your eye in order to ask a question.
I wonder whether I could ask that question immediately since it concerns quite an important and urgent matter for eastern farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules were given to the Chair by the house; consequently the Chair is obliged to enforce the rules as given to it. Under the circumstances I call orders of the day.


Clément Vincent: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying since last week to ask a question in this house and I have never been recognized. I would like to ask a question today. This is very important.


Harold Edward Winch: I too have been trying to get the floor for 20 minutes. Invoke the rule in respect of all hon. members, sir, and not just some.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the difficulty, in a half hour period, of covering all hon. members who wish to ask questions. On the other hand there is a certain personal obligation on hon. members to notify the Chair if they have some extremely important matter to raise.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, last Friday I stood up in this house to speak but was refused by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I will listen to a point of privilege because I want to demonstrate to the house how matters can get out of control if we do not have the full co-operation of all members. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I have been bobbing up and down for the last two days like a cork in a rough ocean and I cannot get recognition from the Chair on a very urgent matter. I should like to direct my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of privilege the Chair must hear it; but if he has a question the time allotted to the question period has elapsed by two minutes. Orders of the day.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 219a, 326m, 326n, 399a, 410c, 410d, 410e, 683 and 848, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned in the budget speech only about a score of tariff changes are proposed by these resolutions. About half of these, indeed somewhat more than half, stem from two tariff board reports which the government received in 1962 and 1963. These tariff board reports related to oilfield equipment and to certain glassware and chinaware for decorating, respectively. They recommended changes in tariff items which were bound by the general agreement on tariffs and trade; hence they could not be implemented until the former GATT commitments were renegotiated. This has now been done.
The effect of the first two of the four resolutions now before the committee is to implement the results of these negotiations. The third resolution provides for a miscellaneous group of amendments. Most of them are of a relieving nature, and the purpose of the others is merely to clarify or modernize existing provisions. The fourth resolution is the usual coming into force provision. It follows the traditional practice of bringing all tariff changes provisionally into effect on the day following the budget, conditional of course on their subsequently being approved by parliament.
Customs Tariff
Before resuming my seat, possibly I should say a few words relating specifically to resolution 1. As I mentioned, it represents a negotiated package stemming from two tariff board reports. However, it involves four items which did not appear in these reports. One of these is a bound item which it was desired to reword for purposes of clarification, and which was included in the negotiations as a matter of convenience. The other three items represent what I believe GATT technicians refer to as "outside compensation". By way of explanation I should point out that while the tariff board report on oilfield equipment recommended some increases and some reductions in bound rates of duty, the increases somewhat overbalanced the reductions. Accordingly, in order to renegotiate our obligations in accordance with the GATT rules, it was necessary for us to make corresponding reductions in the rates on some other items. The concessions which were agreed upon in this connection as acceptable to both ourselves and our trading partners, and which are implemented by resolution 1, affect barytes, montan wax and bread. It is proposed that the duty on barytes be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, and that the duty on montan wax and bread be removed entirely. I might add that these are relatively painless concessions, about which no complaints whatsoever have been received from interested parties.
Possibly we should turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the detailed schedule. Hon. members will note that the first item on the list is bread, to which I have just referred, and about which I should add only that the proposed free entry provision is exactly the same as the corresponding item in the United States tariff. The second item is the one to which I referred earlier as being reworded without any change in rates, and the third item relates to montan wax. Thereafter we get into the list of items covered by the tariff board reports.


Mr. Nowlan:: Everything except the first three have been covered by the tariff board reports, have they?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, in resolutions 1 and 2.


George Clyde Nowlan: I notice montan wax is referred to; the parliamentary secretary said that it is free. I see it still carries a tax of 10 per cent under the general tariff, but the British preferential and most favoured nation have been abolished.


Edgar John Benson: Yes. The general tariff is purely nominal, and as the hon. gentleman will realize, being a former minister of finance, it is practically never used.

Customs Tariff


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the parliamentary secretary care to elaborate further on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Estate Tax Act resolution? Do I understand from what he said that these were to implement part of a package deal?


Edgar John Benson: No, here we are dealing with the Customs Tariff.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know we have been discussing the Customs Tariff, but has the Estate Tax Act been disposed of?


Edgar John Benson: No; that will be the final resolution to be dealt with by the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We intend to come back to it?


Edgar John Benson: We will be going on to it. We have not come to it yet.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I require some clarification on a particular tariff item. This is a matter I have raised in the house before on several occasions. Once I asked a question of the Minister of Transport and he not only did not reply but arrogantly told me to put my question on the order paper. When this was not done he had one of his own government members put it on, and even that member did not get a proper answer to the question. It concerns an item on page 18 of the budget resolutions, item 440m, which deals with tariff changes with respect to aircraft, not including engines, when of types or sizes not made in Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member first let us move through the first two resolutions? There are four in all, and this item is dealt with in the third resolution. At that time I would be pleased to give any explanation I can on this point. If it would be agreeable to the committee I should like to deal with the resolutions in order. Resolutions 1 and 2 simply implement recommendations of the tariff board. Resolution 3 deals with a group of miscellaneous items, including the one raised by the hon. member. I can comment on his point when we reach that item.


Erik Nielsen: Under those recommendations of the tariff board perhaps the parliamentary secretary can inform us whether the tariff board has included in its recommendations any matters pertaining to the imposition of tariffs on Canadian aircraft imported into the United States, or United States aircraft imported into Canada.


Edgar John Benson: No, only two particular references to the tariff board are included in resolutions 1 and 2. There is no reference to aircraft in these.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, in the item dealing with oil well drilling equipment on page

13 the rates listed are 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 20 per cent. Have any of these been raised and, if so, why?


Edgar John Benson: To really get a full answer the hon. member would have to refer to the tariff board report, which I believe is No. 130. What the tariff board did recommend was variations in duty. In some items which were of a class or kind made in Canada they recommended that there be increases in duty, and in others which were not of a class or kind not made in Canada they recommended decreases. The result was that when we were negotiating with our trading partners the increases and decreases almost balanced. However, in order to negotiate the whole package we had to throw in three extra items, of which one is the first item in schedule 1. Offhand I could not tell the hon. member which ones have gone up or down. I would be most pleased to get a copy of the tariff board report for the hon. member if he does not already have one.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With regard to item 399a, pipes or tubes of iron or steel, I do not notice any distinction made in the tariff between those which are of a type made in Canada and those which are not, and there is usually such a provision. Certainly I know there are adequate manufacturing facilities in Canada, and I am wondering why there is no protection or no change made in that regard.


Edgar John Benson: Actually this item is merely a tidying up operation. I am told that sucker rods, pony rods and polished rods were removed from the old item 399a and put in this particular item.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Which item were they put into? This is item 399a.


Edgar John Benson: I am sorry. They were taken out of item 399a and put in item 491(1).


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Do I understand then that none of these items in 399a is of a class or kind made in Canada, or are they all? It certainly seems to me that some of them are and that the same sort of rules should apply, in that there should be two classifications. I am simply wondering what the reason is for only having one.


Edgar John Benson: This happens when you go to the ones moved out of 399a into 491. There are two classifications in the latter item. Some of them are made in Canada and some of them are not. The recommendations followed were those of the tariff board.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to give some explanation with respect to item 683, barytes. Are the rates listed on page 15 the same as

were in effect prior to the recommendations we are now considering? If there have been any changes made, would the parliamentary secretary explain why these changes were made?


Edgar John Benson: Did the hon. member raise the question whether there had been any changes since the resolution was first introduced?


Erik Nielsen: No.


Edgar John Benson: This item was actually given as compensation. This is one of the items on which a concession was offered in the negotiations. To balance out other negotiated items we had to give compensation on three items. The most favoured nation duty on barytes was reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The barytes covered by item 683 is used as a filler in paints, varnishes and paper or as a flux or decolourizer in the manufacture of glass. It makes the glass more malleable and increases its lustre. The imports in 1963 were $3,000 from Germany and $193,000 from the United States. The item is relatively minor in total.


Erik Nielsen: This is the reason I asked the question. Canada does produce barytes and that particular segment of our mining industry seems to be lagging. Yet we have some changes here which may further retard the growth of the baryte mining industry in Canada. I was wondering what the reason was behind the reduction.


Edgar John Benson: The reasoning behind it was that an item had to be found in which compensation could be given in order to negotiate the whole package. With regard to barytes, I am informed that transportation is quite an important factor. As it is a costly matter to move it, the baryte mines of Canada feel they are adequately protected with a 20 per cent tariff on the importation of this material which is the rate that was negotiated. I might also point out to the hon. member that since this item was brought forward there have been absolutely no complaints from the barytes mining industry.


Erik Nielsen: The baryte mining industry in Canada is so small that probably the complaints would be in direct proportion to the size of the industry. I question two of the statements made by the parliamentary secretary. First, he pointed out certain difficulties encountered in transportation, and yet we have several thousands of dollars in imports from Germany. It seems to me that the Canadian baryte industry could have perhaps supplied the same product that was obtained in Germany unless, of course, the German product was of a much higher grade or standard than that obtainable at home.
Customs Tariff
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned the satisfaction of the baryte industry in Canada with the protection afforded at a level of 20 per cent. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the department had any requests from the baryte industry in Canada for a reduction in the protection or for an increase, or whether it was the department that got in touch with some organization or some mining company for the purpose of considering the recommendation of the tariff board that the tariff be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent.


Edgar John Benson: Information with regard to the particular item was gained by the department from the tariff board report which dealt with barytes as used in the drilling industry, which already came in free and will continue to come in free. When the item was being negotiated with our trading partners in GATT it was felt that our tariff on this item was out of line with the tariffs of other countries on the same item, and that we could well make a concession on this particular item, which is not a major one. In addition, as I mentioned, to the best of our knowledge the industry has not objected at all to this change in the tariff.


Erik Nielsen: That does not quite answer the questions I have asked the parliamentary secretary. I quite realize that the barytes used in the drilling industry are tariff free now, but barytes that fall within the classification affected by this tariff item are, as the parliamentary secretary has said, imported from Germany and the United States. As I understand it, and I may be mistaken on this score-if I am I should like the parliamentary secretary to set me straight-the baryte industry in Canada is capable of producing the standard or quality of barytes that is used in those industries which make use of the barytes that fall within the classification under discussion. If we import barytes from Germany instead of utilizing Canadian barytes, I should like to know why. If we can use Canadian barytes for the same purpose as those in this classification are used, then surely the argument advanced by the parliamentary secretary with regard to transportation costs would have no effect.
I ask this specific question of the parliamentary secretary concerning representations: Has he received representations from the baryte mining industry or from mining industry generally in Canada? Have any such representations been received with respect to this particular item? If so, I should like to know, and I am sure the committee would be interested in hearing of those particular representations and how they were made.

Customs Tariff


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I could deal with the second question first. No representations were made dealing with the first item. The barytes of the quality imported could probably be produced in Canada, as can many items of a quality imported in connection with other kinds of manufactured items and mining endeavours in the country. Without having knowledge of the individual importer and his reasons for choosing to import and pay the 20 per cent tariff, I can only guess at this. I would guess that for the use in a particular area it is probably cheaper to ship by boat from Germany than it is to have it hauled by rail in Canada, even though there is a 20 per cent tariff involved in getting it into Canada.


Erik Nielsen: If I may just follow this question of the barytes up to its logical conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I may say to the parliamentary secretary that I am sure the officials sitting in front of him should have information on the point. It is my understanding that probability does not enter into it at all. The Canadian baryte industry does produce a product that can be used in the industries where the imported product is used. If this is so, it seems to me we should be doing all we can to encourage the development of that industry, rather than importing a product to the detriment of industry in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary did say the government had received no objections to the change. I suppose, naturally, the government would not receive any objection to a reduction in tariffs. My question was whether any representations had been made to the parliamentary secretary, and I understood him to say no. I asked another question about five minutes ago: Did the government request any representations from the baryte industry or from the Canadian metal mining association, for instance, on these tariff changes affecting baryte?


Edgar John Benson: There were no specific requests made to the baryte mining industry or to the mining industry in Canada. However, this matter was heard by the tariff board, leading to the report. Everyone who is interested is usually invited by the tariff board to make submissions. The reason I said no objections were raised was that one finds, even in the brief experience in this department I have had, if there is a change in the tariff affecting even a small industry which they do not like, you hear about it very quickly.
People probably import baryte for many reasons. I cannot give you the reason they import baryte from Germany. I should point out that the amount imported from Germany
fMr. Nielsen.]
totalled only $3,000 and the largest imports were from the United States. It is probable that even with the 20 per cent tariff they have to pay-it was 25 per cent at that point- there is an advantage in moving it across the border. Certainly, I agree with the general proposition that people manufacturing in Canada should be encouraged to buy their raw materials in Canada, but with the type of economy we have we cannot tell them that they have to buy them in Canada.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I should like to deal with item 492, which is one of those items in which there is a difference if the article is of a class or kind made in Canada. This item deals with a very substantial quantity of goods in which I am rather interested because the industries producing those goods are located in my area. If the articles are of a class or kind not made in Canada the rather substantial tariff was removed, and I am quite sure that this is probably the result of representations made on behalf of the oil well exploring and production companies. I am sure this change will be welcomed by most of them.
However, I noticed that the reduction is also made, although not so great, where the article is of a class or kind made in Canada. This leaves a very small margin of protection for the local manufacturer. I think when you consider the small margin of protection, plus the expense that is involved in trying to determine whether an article is of a class or kind made in Canada, we will realize the local manufacturer has little or no protection here.
I may cite as an example the first item mentioned, bolted steel tanks and parts thereof. Steel tanks for the oil well industry are made up in all sorts of sizes, shapes and capacities, from relatively small ones servicing one well to some of the giant tanks which are used at the start of the trans-Canada pipe line. We can easily see that a local manufacturer who makes one specific type of tank or tank plates and has a competitor who sells a tank which is slightly larger or slightly smaller in size or a different shape, finds that it is a moot point whether or not this is of a class or kind made in Canada. I suggest that the rough and ready rule in determining the question is whether or not the article can be used for substantially the same purpose by the same people. I can see that many people are going to be upset by the decisions made in connection with this item because we can carry that same sort of argument to pumps such as chemical injection pumps. A pump can be used for chemical injection purposes and it can also be used for another purpose. It is difficult to make these distinctions.

I know there is always going to be difficulty in making these decisions. I am not quarrelling with the honesty of the officials who have to make the decisions. These decisions are difficult, no matter how skilled they are or how much they know about industry. It is for that reason I am questioning the very minor amount of protection that is left in connection with this item, where an article is of a type made in Canada. Where you have a very small amount of protection and you have no margin for error or confusion as to whether or not a person is entitled to the protection, it is going to make people discouraged. They will not invest their money in Canadian enterprise in those areas in which it would be most helpful to the oil industry.
I am sure that the question of the convenience to the oil industry is perhaps not sufficiently impressed on the minds of the officials concerned. In so far as oil production, exploration or the installation of these tank farms is concerned, usually the contractor has a contract in which a time limit is set. He has to deal with a highly technical crew, and the question of how quickly they can complete the installation becomes very important, not just from the point of view of keeping the contract but from the point of view of cost involved. The question of a slight difference in cost must always be weighed against the question of convenience, that is of having the article there. If there is any shadow of doubt about an article the contractor will import what he calls the exact one, even if the Canadian article might do, despite this 5 per cent or 10 per cent tariff, because the amount of money is negligible when compared with the time saved and the certainty the correct article will be available.
I suggest that this is a rather shortsighted approach by the government, because it is worth more than that 5 per cent to the oil industry to give encouragement to Canadian manufacturers to invest their money in building a product in localities such as my area, where it is most wanted. It is always advantageous to the user of these supplies to have the local manufacturer right at hand, where there is not a problem of quick re-establishment of supplies and quick expansion in case of demand, where he can get them quickly and where he is in direct communication with the manufacturer to speed up his production.
The manufacturer is right in the field. He knows what the demand is and what demand may be coming. He can adjust his production very quickly to meet the demand and, not only that, he can vary his product to meet more exactly the requirements and specifications of the purchaser. All of this makes me 20220-174i
Customs Tariff
very dubious about the reduction in this instance, where there is something made mechanically.
Certainly I would be the last one to want to add anything to the cost of oil well production in my area, because it is very important there. I know many people are going to be very happy and will appreciate the reduction in free status where it is of a class or kind made in Canada; but I wonder what representations were received from the local manufacturers themselves, and what were the representations from the production people as to the reduction dealing with this specific point on the class or kind made in Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I could deal very briefly with the questions raised by the hon. member. If we look at item 492(1), although the tariff rate does involve a reduction with regard to bolted steel tanks, the large majority of the items that are contained in this new category in which there is a change in rates, were previously under the free items.
I am informed of this by officials of the department.
In connection with the oil well equipment,
I should point out that the tariff board had this reference made to them and took some two years in which to hear it, report back on it, and consider representations by all interested parties. The tariff board heard both sides of the question, and tried to work out a group of changes in oil field equipment which were reasonably acceptable to everyone.
You could never get a position where everybody would be happy with everything done in tariff changes, and one must also remember that when this recommendation was made and had to be implemented, there had to be negotiations with our trading partners involved in this. Under GATT to get a concession you have to give a concession. I think this is a fair way of dealing with our trade partners.
I believe the tariff board made their decision in all honesty and I am pleased the department accepted the tariff board recommendations. The net result on all oil field equipment, as I previously mentioned, was a slight increase, and that is why we had to reduce these other three items-bread, montan wax and barytes-in order to reach agreement with the people with whom our officials were negotiating.
Since these tariff items have come out there have not been any complaints received from any of the parties involved, which might indicate that, although they are not completely happy, they are not so upset that they are complaining, which usually happens if

Customs Tariff
people are very dissatisfied with the sort of deal that is worked out in the negotiations.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: One of the reasons I am a little dubious on this item is the fact the tariff board sat for two years on it, but in the oil industry where there are new finds made, and where the situation can change quite quickly, a situation of two years ago might not apply today. We have all heard of a new oil field in Alberta. It is almost an extension of the Swan Hills field. It is very close to it, and it looks as though the Slave lake field is going to be as important as the Swan Hills field.
Our suppliers are going to be very happy with the new field, but when they are going to invest their money-and I am thinking in terms of the establishment of industry in my riding and the well being of those established, especially the Canadian manufacturers-they have to look at the long term picture and view it from the standpoint of steady supply and production.
The conditions have changed. The steel plant in Edmonton has made an expansion and there will be more steel available than there was previously. There have been some new manufactures established on a rather small scale in my area, and I am sure the prospect of another large, new oil field, together with the known number of them, is the sort of solid indicator that Canadian manufacturers are looking for. That is why I was asking the parliamentary secretary particularly if there were any late representations-


Edgar John Benson: None.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -from production people, and what are the late representations from Canadian manufacturers on these tariffs involved in item 492.


Edgar John Benson: I should point out that the report of the tariff board on reference No. 130 was tabled on October 7, 1963, and there were over three pages of companies which made representations to the board. The tariff board report, along with its recommendations which are contained in this resolution, has been available since October 1963, and as I understand it from officials of the department there have been no complaints. Nor have there been any complaints since the resolution itself was put on the order paper and became public knowledge, which usually occurs when people have a complaint. When a resolution appears on the order paper at the time of the budget speech, usually if people are terribly upset about it they will make complaints to the Minister of Finance, but that did not happen in this case.

Now to deal with the other question, there may have been changes in conditions. Of course one can assume there have been changes in conditions over the period during which the tariff board had been studying this. But the people who were aware of these changes, and who have made decisions since October 1963, have made those decisions with the full knowledge of what the tariff board was recommending in this regard. It is also very unlikely that the point of profit or loss, if one is building a new steel plant, for example, is going to be materially affected by the difference between a 5 per cent and a 10 per cent tariff on this item. Mind you, it will affect it, but I do not think a 10 per cent tariff protection would be a great tariff behind which to build an industry.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would not want to quibble about words when the parliamentary secretary says there were not complaints. I take this to mean there were no representations whatever.


Edgar John Benson: No writing, no correspondence.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The oil industry is usually pretty quick to make its views known, and I am therefore encouraged by the fact that there have been no representations. But with my own knowledge of the oil industry, and particularly of the production end of it, of the supply of the tanks, treaters, separators and the pipe lines, I have a strong reservation in my mind, particularly where a company is just getting established, that a 5 per cent protection is not very much of an incentive, particularly where a person is trying to establish a new industry in competition with established importers who already have their customers, some of whom are in very set lines.
Over the past two years the efforts of the government have been to try and get more and more manufacturing industries in Canada, and that is the reason I am talking about the 5 per cent rate. The 10 per cent rate seemed to be enough of a margin to enable a new manufacturer to have a price advantage, but even that price advantage might not be sufficient in his favour. He may be able to compete on even terms with his United States competitor, but the handiness of local supply and delivery can give him enough to work on. I shall do some checking on this, something I should have done earlier, with regard to some of the newly started firms in my own area.
It seems to me that if there has not been been a complaint received it is because business is good-because there is just now tremendous activity. But this activity only lasts

a while and then they get back to normal, and this is when complaints may arise. I am afraid we are likely to have a lot of complaints as the new field develops to the point where the first rush of business is over.


Edgar John Benson: I think the point made by the hon. member is well taken-that in boom times business is so good that one does not complain about such things as changes in tariffs. But the over-all effect of the changes in these items is in favour of the producer. In order to negotiate them with our tariff partners we had to include three items which were outside the oil field. We had to do this in order to reach agreement.


Mr. Kennedy:: I should like to refer, for a few moments, to item 683-barytes. This is an important product in my area and its production employs a considerable number of men. I notice that the most favoured nation tariff is being reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and I wonder how this will affect production of this material, particularly in the light of the fact that the market is a very competitive one. Is the recommendation of the tariff board being followed in this respect?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps the hon. member was not present earlier. I dealt with this item at some length then, indicating that when all the oil field items had been taken together there were slightly more increases in tariffs than decreases, and in order to adjust this we had to make some slight concession to our trading partners. This included three items, among them barytes. I pointed out at that time that imports of barytes were not large in 1963-$3,000 worth from Germany and $193,000 worth from the United States.
I said the question was raised as to whether or not we had written to the producers of barytes with respect to any objection they might have had to this item, but at that time my reply was that I did not know. I have since been informed by officials of the department that we did write to them, and there was no objection to this particular item.


Harold Edward Winch: Are we completely tied to each one of the individual items here or will there be any opportunity for us to discuss customs tariffs items outside those listed?


The Chairman:: We are tied to the items before us in this resolution, and this resolution deals with specific items. The only discussion we can have here must relate to the items that are before the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: And the Chair will hold to that?
Customs Tariff


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, that is what I should like to do, and that is what we have been doing until now.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Could the parliamentary secretary explain this item where it says both "10 per cent" and "free" and this continues right across the page?


Edgar John Benson: Yes; the items included there come from several previous tariff rates. Suppose we take item 492. The items here come from former sections 446a, 427 and 848. Item 848 was a free item. The rates were 10 per cent, 22J per cent and 35 per cent on items 446a and 427.


Mr. Wahn:: This resolution relates to
changes in schedule A, and I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether there is any particular reason for not repealing item 848a as recommended by the tariff board. I should like to refer specifically to a situation which arises under item 848a. Perhaps I should disclose the fact that the firm of which I am a partner acts for several companies interested in the production of potash in Saskatchewan.
I am advised by people who, I believe, know what they are talking about, that in this item there is a reference to muriate of potash, whereas fertilizers generally are dealt with in item 663b. The reference to muriate of potash in 848a will have the effect of placing producers of potash in a disadvantageous position as compared with producers of other fertilizers. Was any consideration given to clearing up this point, because this situation is apparently the result of an oversight in drafting the original item.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that this was not an oversight. Actually, the item to which the hon. member is referring, item 848a, is dealt with in the second report of the tariff board. The report which is being implemented is the first report, that dealing with oil field equipment. The other report, which was tabled on February 25, 1964, is not being implemented in this particular resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution No. 2 agreed to.
in!r sched}llf A to the Customs Tariff be ameiided by striking out tariff items 9j, 156, 196, 237a, 356b, 440ml., 440nl., 440r., 521(2)	521(7)
621(8), 611a (4), 681c and 696a, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the of duty? lt6mS' enumeratlons of goods and rates
Erik Nielsen: On the matter I raised concerning the tariff on imported aircraft of a class or kind not made in Canada, may I begin by saying that those interested'in aviation in Canada generally, and I am not simply

Customs Tariff
speaking of the air line companies, are very-concerned about the intentions of the department with respect to the imposition of what has amounted to a controversial 15 per cent tariff on aircraft exceeding a gross weight of 2500 pounds but not exceeding 4500 pounds.
The application for the imposition of this tariff was first made by an Ontario aviation company, and I understand it has been under consideration in the department, as well as by the government generally, for some time. I do not believe the government has made any decision as yet. In the absence of such a decision there is a good deal of unrest among aircraft outlets in Canada and, indeed, there has been some speculation in aircraft sales and purchases. I believe it would be in the best interests of the industry as a whole if the parliamentary secretary could now state just what is the policy of the government in this regard and say whether or not the tariff is to be imposed. From the wording of this item no. 440m, it appears as if the tariff will be imposed on and after July 1, 1965. I may be incorrect in this assumption and, if I am, I hope the parliamentary secretary will so inform me.
I know the suggestion has been made to officials of the department that rather than impose a 15 per cent tariff on aircraft of the weight in question, when imported into Canada, there should be an abandonment of the United States tariff now imposed on aircraft of a gross weight above 4500 pounds. This, of course, would result very favourably in this way, that the aircraft industry of Canada would enjoy a freer flow of trade between Canada and the United States, particularly such companies as de Havilland, who sell a good many Beaver aircraft all around the world. The Otter aircraft is another I can think of, and the Caribou is finding growing popularity around the world. If the United States were to drop the tariffs now imposed on that classification of aircraft, rather than Canada imposing its 15 per cent duty on aircraft of between 2,500 and 4,500 pounds gross weight, I think probably the side effects would be a good deal more beneficial to Canada than the result of this tax.
We are in this position, that there is no aircraft manufacturer in Canada today that manufactures aircraft of less than 4,500 pounds gross weight. Most of these are imported from the United States. Cessna Aircraft Corporation provides a good proportion of the market, as does Piper and the Beech-craft Corporation. Now we have one Canadian manufacturer-an enterprising manufacturer, I might say-who is coming along with a five-place aircraft of between 2,500 and 4,500 pounds gross weight. The immediate thought is that in order to give protection to

this growing industry we will put a tariff on such aircraft coming into this country, but I do not think that is a healthy way of encouraging the growth of the aircraft industry in Canada. I will have more to say about that matter if the parliamentary secretary cannot say now that government policy is not to impose this tariff.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with item 440m(l) and 440n(l), which is an extension of the present free entry provision for a year. One of the questions raised by the hon. member was the reduction or removal of both the United States and Canadian tariffs on aircraft. This possibility will be raised at the GATT negotiations;
I can give him this undertaking. As a matter of fact, detailed submissions in this regard are presently being considered by the tariffs and trade committee which was set up by the government in anticipation of the GATT negotiation. This committee is under the chairmanship of Mr. Norman Robertson, with Mr. Hector McKinnon as the vice-chairman. As to the question raised by the hon. member with respect to special types of aircraft, this speculation has arisen from a request to the Department of National Revenue by a firm in Malton, Found Brothers Aviation Ltd., for a change in the made in Canada classification of certain aircraft under item 440m. At present only single engine, fixed wing aircraft for civilian use weighing from 4,500 ot 8,000 pounds are ruled to be of a type or size made in Canada. This provides protection for such aircraft as the Otter and Beaver aircraft manufactured by de Havilland.
Found Brothers have asked that the made in Canada ruling be extended to cover aircraft weighing from 2,500 to 4,500 pounds in order to provide a 15 per cent duty for a new model which they are producing, weighing 2,950 pounds. This request is under review by the Department of National Revenue. If and when any changes are made in the present ruling, they will be issued in the usual way by the Department of National Revenue.
I cannot say that the government policy is so-and-so in this matter, because this is a matter which is under consideration at the present time and a decision has not been made at this point.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, can the committee be assured at least to this extent, that there is going to be no imposition of the controversial 15 per cent tariff on aircraft weighing between 2,500 and 4,500 pounds imported into Canada, at least until July 1, 1965? Can the parliamentary secretary give us that assurance?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think I can give that undertaking, Mr. Chairman, because it turns on the decision made on the facts of the case raised by Found Brothers whether or not such aircraft are going to be classified as of a type or size made in Canada. The answer to the second question asked by the hon. member hinges on the answer that I gave to the first question; so really I cannot answer the second question in the affirmative without answering the first one positively, which I did not do.


Erik Nielsen: What I am trying to do there, Mr. Chairman, is end some speculation that has been generated as a result of the indecisiveness of the government in this connection. Here Found Brothers have made an application to the department. This application was made several months ago, and knowledge of it has become quite general throughout the aircraft industry in Canada. Therefore you find dealers in aircraft scurrying to import them from the United States in order to stock them and sell them before what they fear will be the imposition of this 15 per cent duty.
The matter has been before the government long enough now, surely, for them to end this type of speculation and this anxiety within the industry in Canada, simply by saying what is the position. If they cannot say now, "We have decided to impose the 15 per cent tariff", surely the parliamentary secretary could at least rise and say, "We have not yet done so, but it is our intention to bring the matter to a head and announce a decision within the next two or three months", or whatever it might be-perhaps in 60 days.


Edgar John Benson: I should indicate to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty in regard to this particular question. The particular firm, Found Brothers Aviation Ltd., which has raised this question, had until recently only produced two aircraft of this particular size. You then have the Department of National Revenue faced with having to make a decision as to whether or not specific types of aircraft are of a type or size made in Canada when there is a very small production of these aircraft in Canada. This has to be a matter of fact, and I would say one would have to see how these people are going to produce; if their production line is going to go along and they are going to produce quantities of this aircraft. After seeing what is done in this regard, one can make a decision.
As I understand it, only two aircraft have been produced, and one can hardly make a ruling that something has happened based on a very small production such as this. This is the situation we face at the present time.
Customs Tariff
Nevertheless, they have asked the department to consider whether or not this aircraft can be ruled as being of a type or size being made in Canada, and the department will keep looking into this matter and come up with a decision as soon as it is physically possible.


Erik Nielsen: This is the type of answer we have been getting to questions time after time when they have been asked in the house. Here we have speculation that is growing day by day because of the indecisiveness of the government on what seems to be a relatively simple decision to make. I think the parliamentary secretary is looking at the problem from the wrong end of the stick. Instead of saying, "We are not deciding because all we have involved here are two aircraft", he should perhaps be looking at it from our point of view and saying, "We are going to decide not to impose the 15 per cent tariff on this classification of aircraft imported into Canada", because there have been only two produced since Found Brothers went into production, if for no other reason.
But quite apart from that, the parliamentary secretary should consider, too-if my information is correct-the representations that have been made, or the feelings of the management of Beechcraft Corporation, Piper Corporation, Cessna Corporation, de Havilland Corporation. All these Canadian and United States aircraft manufacturers seem to be in accord with the principle of eliminating the tariffs entirely. This undoubtedly would redound to the lasting benefit of the Canadian aviation industry and would encourage the growth of that industry. It is astonishing if, in the face of the representations made by the United States aircraft industry in this particular field of aircraft production, the Canadian government should have any difficulty whatsoever in negotiating the mutual abolition of tariffs on aircraft crossing both ways across the border.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has indicated some indecision. I really do not believe there is any indecision, in that the department holds these aircraft at the present time as not made in Canada. Therefore the only indecision that has arisen is because of a rumour that someone starts, or speculation that someone starts, that we are going to impose a class or kind legislation ruling with regard to this particular type of aircraft. The speculation does not come from within the government; the government's position is firm in this regard. We are standing on the position that they are not at the present time made in Canada. This is our position at this point. As we have said, the government intends to keep looking at this matter as the

Customs Tariff
production of these aircraft increases with this particular firm.
If a point is reached where they can say it is of a class or kind made in Canada perhaps a change in the present ruling will be made. Nevertheless the present ruling is a firm one. There is nothing wishy-washy about it and the government is not hedging in the matter. They simply say that they are not made in Canada, and all the speculation and letters written last month was a result of someone starting a hot rumour about something they did not know too much about.


Erik Nielsen: I really cannot let the parliamentary secretary get away with that. He knows as well as I do that his departmental officials have been corresponding not in any way confidentially with people outside the department in connection with the imposition of the 15 per cent duty. So that when he says that there has been an unfounded or a hot rumour floating around the country about the imposition of a 15 per cent tariff, he is talking through the top of his head, because it is his department itself which received the application from Found Brothers. It was also his department which exchanged correspondence with Found Brothers and others, which has given substance to this consideration, not rumour. The parliamentary secretary said this afternoon that his department is considering the imposition of this duty, so it is not simply a rumour. The speculation which requires to be terminated now is that there is going to be a 15 per cent duty imposed on this classification of aircraft imported into Canada; and so that everybody in the Canadian aviation industry can rest at ease the government should end this speculation which has been generated as a result of its own indecision. The consideration of this matter, as the parliamentary secretary knows-and if he does not know he should-started in his own department back in 1963. It seems that the passage of some eight months is a little too long; that is why I say there has been an indecisiveness displayed on the part of the government in dealing with this matter.


Edgar John Benson: I can answer the hon. member fairly easily. First of all it is not our department at all about which he is talking, but the Department of National Revenue. They consider this matter.


Erik Nielsen: Well, it is your resolution.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, the resolution comes under the Department of Finance. But an application was made to the department to make a class or kind ruling in this particular instance. The department then corresponded openly with people who were going to be involved

in any such ruling, and it is quite necessary that they do this. For example, anybody can manufacture anything for which there is a preferential tariff, if it is of a class or kind made in Canada. An application can be made to have something ruled as a class or kind made in Canada, in which case the department will immediately start correspondence with the people concerned. But this does not mean-


Erik Nielsen: It is not a rumour then, is it?


Edgar John Benson: The rumour which I intimated was being spread was that we are going to make a certain kind of ruling in this instance. It has to be considered. Everybody concerned has to be considered, but no class or kind ruling would be made until 10 per cent of the normal market is manufactured in Canada. That is the basis on which a ruling is made. The department will continue, of course, to look into the matter and watch what is being done, which is what they should do. I think that the speculation which was rampant last month arose out of somebody indicating that a change was going to be made.


Erik Nielsen: I did not say it was rampant. I think I should draw the matter to a logical conclusion by saying this. If I can interpret the waffling which the parliamentary secretary has done around this matter, what he is saying in effect is that the government has not yet made up its mind in connection with the imposition of a 15 per cent tariff, despite the fact that it has been under consideration for eight months or more; and that no firm word at all can be given to the Canadian aviation industry at this time. Is that the position which the government is taking?


Mr. Hahn:: I rise on a point of order. I submit the argument raised by the hon. member is completely out of order, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing a change to a tariff item in a resolution. Certain tariffs are set up for aircraft of a class or kind made in Canada. The whole subject matter raised by the hon. member opposite concerns a ruling as to whether or not an aircraft is of a class or kind made in Canada. If it is, it falls under a certain tariff item; if it is not it does not. It has nothing to do with the tariff as such, so I feel that the discussion which we have had is completely out of order. We should be discussing only the item in the resolution which concerns the amount of tariff. Whether an item falls in or out of a class or kind made in Canada ruling is a matter for the Department of National Revenue and should not be discussed here.
I might say that I have strong sympathy for the case which the hon. member is trying

to put forward. I do not want to see this tariff imposed, but I think that this is the wrong place to discuss it.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member may not have been in the chamber when I opened my remarks in connection with this item. The general principle which I put to the parliamentary secretary was that of the abolition of the tariff entirely, both from Canada and from the United States, on classes of aircraft now affected by this particular resolution. Then I went tendentiously into the matter of broadening the class or kind of aircraft which is going to be ruled as of a class or kind made in Canada, and it seemed to me that on that ground I was in order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Might I just say a few words in respect of the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. While the hon. member for Yukon says that reports of what the government intend to do may not be widespread, may I say that I have received a great deal of communication, mostly from private aircraft users, potential purchasers, etc. Bearing in mind that this comes into effect on and after July 1, and in view of the fact that the parliamentary secretary can give us no assurance as to when the government can be a little firmer in its attitude in this connection, would the government not consider withdrawing this at this time, and bringing it forward once the industry which caused this application to be made has been more firmly established, or given some indication that they will get 10 per cent of the market. In this way there would be a little more certainty both in the industry and in connection with potential purchasers?


Edgar John Benson: To withdraw this resolution at this time because the item runs out on July 1 would mean that it would have exactly the opposite effect to what the hon. member wants. It would mean that all aircraft would be subject to 15 per cent tariff coming into Canada.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: You could withdraw the 15 per cent.


Edgar John Benson: No, I do not think we should withdraw it. This is a class or kind problem which arises, not just with regard to aircraft but with regard to many other items. The department must of necessity look at these matters on a continuing basis. Its present decision is not waffling. It has made a firm decision that the present ruling is that these aircraft are not of a class or kind made in Canada. That is a firm ruling, as I stated before. Someone has made an application for a change in that ruling with regard to a particular type of aircraft, asking that it be ruled as a
Customs Tariff
class or kind made in Canada. This decision will not be made. One cannot rule it as of a class or kind made in Canada until the producer has obtained 10 per cent of the Canadian market. As far as I am informed, the producer has only produced a very small number of aircraft. One cannot say that the matter is closed forever because the position may change in the relatively near future or in the distant future.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Then can we wind this up with a commitment from the parliamentary secretary that this tariff will not be imposed until the company concerned obtains 10 per cent of the market?


Edgar John Benson: That is true in a general way.


Erik Nielsen: Before the item carries, as a matter of interest to me personally I should like some explanation from the parliamentary secretary of the changes proposed in item 156. I notice that whisky, gin, rum, brandy and liqueurs are affected. I will stop there because I am not interested in the next category, ethyl alcohol. I might say to the parliamentary secretary that I come from a territory known for having the largest per capita consumption of gin, rum, brandy, scotch, rye and the like in Canada. Therefore we are vitally interested if we are going to have to pay more for a bottle of whisky.
I might say that I personally was introduced to what some people call the evils of that devil rum and others call the joy of whisky by a person now in the Department of National Revenue, so these items have a certain nostalgia for me. I should like to have the parliamentary secretary explain what the government hopes to achieve by the changes proposed in this item unless, of course, sobriety is the only reason, in which case we could leave the matter there.


Edgar John Benson: 
Erik Nielsen: Smaller bottles under the Liberals.


Edgar John Benson: Customs Tariff


George Clyde Nowlan: Did you get the approval of the association of Canadian distillers for this change?


Edgar John Benson: No.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution No. 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: This completes the Customs Tariff. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the resolution to amend the Estate Tax Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Chairman.


Edgar John Benson: Would the Chairman consider rising and reporting progress? Perhaps we could then have first reading of the bill. We might even have second reading, as the bill is the same as the resolution.


George Clyde Nowlan: With smaller bottles I think we will only proceed one step at a time. Resolutions reported and concurred in.



Guy Favreau: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-92, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


George Clyde Nowlan: Next sitting of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the house. Does the house agree to call it five o'clock at this point?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Guy Favreau: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not five o'clock and if anyone is objecting I am sure the parliamentary secretary would be prepared to make his preliminary statement on the Estate Tax Act resolution.


Edgar John Benson: I would be very pleased to do so if we may revert to committee for this purpose.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Let us go on with private members' hour. I am sure hon. members at the other end of the house are just having a little fun and would not really want to see the parliamentary secretary start on his statement for a period of only a minute or two, when it would be much more sensible to proceed to private members' hour now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the
house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.


PENSIONS
Howard Russell MacEwan: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of changing the terminology in the designation "old age" as contained in both the Old Age Assistance Act, being chapter 199 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and amendments thereto, and the Old Age Security Act, being chapter 200 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and amendments thereto, to a more worthy designation, so that the aforesaid will be known as the "senior citizens assistance act" and "senior citizens security act" respectively.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this resolution may I say that I placed the same resolution on the order paper of the house last session but at that time it was not reached for discussion. I have presented it again this session and it now appears as No. 14 on the order paper. I do not intend to speak for long. I hope hon. members in all parts of the house will have something to say on it and will agree with the resolution I have put forward.
I should like to refer to how the matter came to my attention, and perhaps it has come to the attention of other hon. members in a similar way. One day I was speaking to a constituent of mine who is a retired C.N.R. worker and who is far from what might be called old age. He retired from the Canadian National at their retirement age. He is a man who was very active while working with the C.N.R. and has been active later in many community projects.
He suggested that there should be some changes in these acts. He said to me: "I do not feel like I am old. What do you think about this?" I said to him that I had heard the designation "senior citizens" used for a number of years in various parts of the country and I told him that the best and only way I knew to bring this matter to the attention of the government was to bring it forward by way of a notice of motion in the House of Commons.
It has been my experience that many men and women in the group from 65 to 69 who come under the Old Age Assistance Act and in the group 70 and over who come under the Old Age Security Act certainly are not what one would call old. So far as political life is concerned, I must say that in working with

different organization chairmen, other supporters and also constituents of mine in the last few years I have found that those in these two age groups have given me good advice and I have also enjoyed their company. My mind goes back to the days when I was attending college and working in and around the coal mines of my constituency. I recall quite well various people in these age groups with whom I worked. May I say that, although I was a young man at the time, they put me to shame by the amount of work they could do. I noticed that just within the last year or so some of these people celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, at which time I was able to congratulate them. In my opinion, they are certainly far from old age.
May I point out briefly the history of the two acts involved in this resolution? Some of the social welfare measures which have come to occupy an important position in the Canadian system of social justice may be summed up as follows: first, the original Old Age Pension Act of 1927 provided a maximum pension of $20 per month. The federal contribution at that time was limited to one half the cost. In 1931 the act was amended and the federal share was increased to three quarters of the total cost. The original act was further amended to increase the amount of pension to $25 per month in 1943; to $30 per month in 1947; to $40 per month in 1949-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): Order; I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I should point out to him that the resolution before us is one to change the terminology of the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act. I suggest to him that a discussion of the amounts of these pensions is not within the terms of this resolution.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I was not trying to get into any political wrangle. I was giving the history or background of these two acts, and in doing this I assure you, sir, I will arrive at the terminology shortly. This was the history of the set-up of these acts and the names of these acts.
However, I shall go on, and I point out that a major step was taken in 1951 when the federal-provincial scheme of assistance to the aged and blind was completely altered by the enactment of the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act. This was a major step which was taken at that time. The principal changes were the adoption of pensions for all persons 70 years of age and over by the elimination of the means test, the introduction of contributory taxes for the purpose of financing this enlarged scheme, and the granting of assistance payments on the basis of a means test to persons 65 years of age and over.
Pensions
As I have pointed out, this is a brief history of these two acts as they have come forward and the terminology adopted in 1951 has been the terminology used since that time. They have been called, of course, the Old Age Assistance Act and the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Francis:: Will the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker? In the course of his review of the legislation, which I found very interesting, did he come across any submissions which supported the claim he is now making, that there should be a change of name? It seems to me there was a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which reviewed the matter fairly extensively in 1951. Did he come across anything which would support his demand for a change of name?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I take it the hon. member has gone into this question more thoroughly than I have. I understand that there have been quite a number of submissions in this regard to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and possibly to the committee as the member suggests. I believe that this terminology, as I have already stated, is used throughout the country. It has been used in housing groups, low rental units for older people and even in this House of Commons. About two weeks ago during the debate on a resolution introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), I noticed on checking Hansard that almost all of those who took part in the debate referred to our older citizens as "senior citizens".
Now, the saying goes, Mr. Speaker, that a person is only as old as he feels. If I may go back a few years and think of my own family,
I know that my Scottish great grandfather, because of the independence of his race, certainly never wanted to be called old aged even to his last day. I believe the same thing can be said of other groups in this country.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if the hon. member is alleging that his respected grandparent would have liked to be called a senior citizen?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Well, the hon. member is learned in the law and can draw his own deductions. I know that I am proud to be of the Scottish race. The hon. member will make his own deductions. I think perhaps he would have liked that designation; I am quite sure he would have.
May I refer briefly to the Canada Year Book for 1963-64 to give the house an idea of the numbers in these two groups in Canada? These are the last statistics which I have available, although I believe within

Pensions
the last few days the department has put forward statistics which may be more up to date. I am referring first to the Canada Year Book, 1963-64, page 295 and then to page 296. On page 295, table 3, I find that as of March 31, 1962 there were 927,590 recipients of old age security in Canada. Just for the record, perhaps I may refer to the province of Nova Scotia, in which there were 42,572 old age security recipients. I refer now to page 296, table 4, old age assistance. As of March 31, 1962, there were 98,944 recipients and in the province of Nova Scotia, 5,248 recipients.
I know that various things have been said about old age. I came across a little piece in a pamphlet known as "Industry", which is published monthly by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. There is a little quotation here which took my fancy at the time and which refers to the great actor Maurice Chevalier. I quote from this publication:
"Old age," in the words of the irrepressible Maurice Chevalier, "is not really so bad, especially when you consider the alternative."
This is all I have to say on this matter. I have taken a few minutes of the time of the house and I hope hon. members, if they will not accept the designation "senior citizen" will perhaps have some other ideas. In my opinion, the designation of these two acts should be changed. I hope the government will consider the change because it would mean, perhaps, spending only a few dollars to change the letterheads of the two branches concerned. I believe these designations would be more appropriate and would be accepted by all Canadians. I hope they will be accepted by the government and by all parties in the house, and I ask for the endorsement of this resolution.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much attention to the interesting speech made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) and I wish to congratulate him for presenting that motion to change the term "old age".
Last year, Mr. Speaker, I put on the order paper a similar motion bearing no. 30 but the session came to an end before it could be discussed.
That motion, which was put on the order paper at the very beginning of the session, that is on May 17, 1963, read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the titles of the old age assistance and the old age security acts and deleting the words "old age" from official documents, and substituting therefor a more appropriate designation which will not reflect on the status of recipients of such payments.
Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest then any particular terminology, knowing that such a 
matter could be discussed and that the officials of the department as well as the hon. member would certainly be qualified to make suggestions.
However, I have been pleased to note this year that the hon. member for Pictou had put a similar motion on the order paper. I note that he suggests some terms which obviously in French may not have the same meaning as in English. In English, the legislation is called the "senior citizen's assistance act" which has been translated in French by "Loi sur l'assistance aux citoyens d'age avance." This could evidently lead to a rather interesting debate, to wit if the French translation conveys the idea of the hon. member for Pictou when he refers to "senior citizens".
Now, Mr. Speaker, a discussion to establish whether the French translation well renders the meaning of "senior citizen" in English, would be rather academic in itself. But I entirely agree with the hon. member for Pictou.
On the other hand, when I put that motion on the order paper last year, I stirred up the rage of certain newspapermen. I believe that if the hon. member for Pictou is not yet the butt of their attacks, he will soon be. This proves that everybody cannot share the same opinion.
Last year, on May 25, that is a week after I put this motion on the order paper, a well-known Ottawa paper, the Ottawa Journal, said this in an editorial:

Is old age a disgrace, a shame?

The newspaperman was referring to the term "senior citizen".

Mr. Lachance, a Montreal Liberal, makes it sound as if it were.
He has put on the House of Commons order paper a notice of motion to have the government consider the advisability of amending the titles of the Old Age Assistance and Old Age Security acts and deleting the words "old age" from official documents.
He would substitute "a more appropriate designation which will not reflect on the status of recipients of such payments."
Age is an honourable estate, we wish our friends old age, we associate age with wisdom and we each have the ambition to make a hundred or more.
If not "old age" what then? If Mr. Lachance proposes to change "old age" to "senior citizens" we hope every over-70 sends him a poison letter.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. member for Pictou will be a butt for the newspapermen, if he has not already been so, following this discussion today.
As I said a while ago-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Don't worry about me, worry about yourself.


Georges-C. Lachance: Which shows that everyone cannot share the same opinion. But I think that when a person reaches about 70 years of age and receives then his old age pension, it is an honour, although some people may get it before.
Some people are inclined to think of the old age pension as a disgrace, a stigma, while in fact it is rather an honour done to our citizens who have acquired the right to be thanked for the services they have rendered to their country.
1 fully agree that we should change the words "old age" and replace them by others which, perhaps, could mean or imply the receipt of a retirement social pension. It is obvious that several other names could be suggested.
I have noticed that in some districts of Montreal, one of whose ridings I have the honour to represent-and I know that this is true also in other regions of the country- one hears about "the golden age". Those are clubs of people who have reached a certain age, and their membership is large. They organize recreational activities for their members. Known as "golden age clubs", they are very popular in Montreal and their members are very happy to belong to them.
We might adopt such a name that would not reflect on people's age. I sincerely admit that it is not very pleasant to get an old age pension and feel it is something to be ashamed of. I am convinced that it is because of our standard of living that life expectancy has increased in Canada and that old age has lost so much of its importance nowadays that a person is old only inasmuch as he feels old.
We all know people who, in spite of the fact that they are well advanced in years, feel young at heart, wish to remain young and have no intention of being considered as older citizens. One is old only if he says he is old and acts accordingly. Some people are old at 20 whereas others feel so well at 80 that they set an example to many much younger persons.
Consequently, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Pictou once more. I feel the wording should be changed but I am not sure whether the words "senior citizens" would be appropriate. The expression "golden age" could surely be used. We could also speak of a "retirement social pension" or of a "national retirement pension". There are other words, but the English expression "old age" and its French equivalent "vieillesse"
Pensions
as in old age pension and "pension de vieillesse" are old-fashioned.
Nowadays, people are not old when they reach a certain age. What would happen if the government suddenly decided tomorrow to grant old age pensions at age 60 as it has often been suggested in the house? Would it mean that people would be old at 60 years of age? And if this process should continue, a day might come when people would receive an old pension at 55 years of age. Would that mean that because they have reached that age they would be in the "old age pension" class?
The old age pension should not be related to a matter of age. It would certainly be beneficial if the terminology relative to social legislation were to be changed, because it is not intended to stigmatize the citizens, but rather to help them and to prove to them the nation's recognition for their good work of the past.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the newspapermen, or rather the newspaperman who, last year, was good enough to express his opinion on this subject-he was certainly at liberty to do so and I congratulate him-will have changed his mind this year and that he will accept such an excellent suggestion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good idea for us to take a look at the terminology of the two pieces of legislation to which reference is made in the motion now before us. Therefore I join with the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) in congratulating the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) for inviting us to have this discussion this afternoon.
I must say that there is something to the suggestion that the word "old" and the words "old age" do, sometimes, suggest something unpleasant and if we could find better terminology it would be a good idea. However, I am not completely sold on "senior citizens" as a phrase to take the place of "old age" in this legislation. As the hon. member has just said, if we bring down the retirement age we may be paying old age pensions to people who are not as senior as pensioners are now. None the less I think it would be a good idea for us to look at this. Others may come up with suggestions, and perhaps our friends in the press will not only make comments on what has been said here today but may themselves come up with suggestions. I wonder whether we cannot at least "try on for size" such phrases as "the retirement security act" or "the retired persons act" or "the retired persons pension act".

Pensions
I am interested in the comment made by the last speaker as to finding a word or terminology which can be used easily in both our official languages. That will always have to be considered, but it does strike me that the word "retirement" in some form might fit a little better than the word "senior". In any case, if we can get rid of the word "old", that might be desirable.
I must say that when one talks about a stigma in relation to this legislation, not many people feel that it is so much of a stigma to have the name "old age" applied to their pensions as it is to feel the stigma of the means test in the case of pensions under the Old Age Assistance Act and the inadequacy of the amount in the case of payments under the Old Age Security Act. If we are interested in doing away with a stigma, the thing to do is to make the other kind of improvements in this legislation. I can see already the letters that some of us are going to receive after this debate. We are going to get letters from old age security recipients across Canada who will have noted this debate, and they will say: What are you worrying about the name of the act for, when what we are concerned about is having an adequate pension on which to live in this day and age in the light of the kind of economy we have at the present time? When we are talking about changing the names of this pension legislation we might bear in mind as an ideal getting rid altogether of what we now call the Old Age Assistance Act. I hope the day is not far off when a combination of the Old Age Security Act with its being made available at a lower age, together with the protection of the Canada pension plan, if we are ever to get it on the statute books, will do away with the necessity of any means test on old age pensions for those between the ages of 65 and 70.
Mr. Speaker, you have been very lenient with me. I realize I have got away from terminology. I have been talking about such things as the amount of the pension, the means test and the Canada pension plan. But I do suggest that if we are concerned about a stigma-and that word was used by a previous speaker-we must be concerned not only with the naming of the legislation but with its terms. In other words, as was said by the hon. member who has just spoken, we must be concerned not only with the terminology but with the terms of the legislation. Nevertheless I believe it is a good idea to think about this for a bit this afternoon.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I am
sorry I was not in my own place when I first rose, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to add very much to the discussion, but simply to say that I join with previous speakers who have

discussed the noble enterprise of changing the names of the acts referred to. I agree there is something depressing about the names now used-"old age assistance", "old age pensions", and so on.
I wonder, though, if we cannot undertake a more complete provision and think in terms of an encompassing program to meet the total social needs of our people, and not have a fragmentation of programs dealing with old age, blindness, disability, unemployment and so forth. We find, now, that these programs have been devised in a piecemeal way to meet separate needs, and I think the time has come when we should consider some over-all social security program which would at the same time erase the names to which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) objects. Such a proposal might well eliminate overlapping costs of administration and lead to a better service to the individuals affected. I think that at the present time a great deal of money is needed to run these separate programs. We have a whole hierarchy of systems. If there were an over-all social security plan for Canada it would represent one answer to the problem raised by the hon. member for Pictou, who wants to change the names of these acts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize that he may have stumbled right there upon a good name for all of this legislation-"the social security act".


Siegfried John Enns: I certainly have no objection to that. But I was really saying there is a more basic problem, that of erasing a fragmented approach to meeting people's needs. "Social security" might well be acceptable to the hon. member for Pictou as well.


John James Greene: First, I would join with other members in commending the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) who brought this matter before the house. I might point out that we expect measures both enlightened and learned from the hon. member for Pictou who is an incumbent of the west block, which is rapidly becoming known as the source of most of the grey matter and intelligence of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John James Greene: In particular, I may point out that the hon. member for Pictou is from the sanctum sanctorum of the west block, namely the third floor, the very epitome of all learning in that venerable institution. I would point out, with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that I was somewhat disturbed that he did not include in his general plea for

security for those in need, without the necessity of the means test, those most deserving of persons who are now faced with this embarrassment, pettiness and smallness that is emcompassed within the means test, namely the recipients of the war veterans allowance.
If I may be so bold, Mr. Speaker, I would like to embody within the remarks he has made a plea that they, too, be considered not only for increased allowances, which is very badly needed at the present time, but for the receiving of those allowances without the embarrassment of the means test, which is now their lot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I was also somewhat taken aback to learn that the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) had been taken to task by one of the local newspapers by reason of bringing this subject matter before this house at an earlier date. I might point out that some of the editorial writers for that venerable journal are no longer with it; they are making remarks verbally which are getting them into hot water in other places besides the editorial page of that newspaper-and it may be the very remarks that were made with respect to old age and the joys and virtues of old age indicated that very senility which caused trouble in later times and under other auspices.
With respect to another name for the bill which was suggested, apart from "senior citizens", I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Pictou suggest that there might be other names applicable, although I was not too struck, even though he is from my own party, with the name of "the golden age bill" offered by the hon. member for Lafontaine. With regard to anything to do with gilt or gold, it is well known that the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, the official opposition, is that which is normally lined up with the great signs and sources of wealth in this country, and if it was called "the golden bill" in any form, it might be thought to be a Tory bill-and this would hardly be applicable.
I was also very pleased to hear in the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou that he was once a young man, and not too long ago I think he indicated; because some of the very morose and morbid and almost doleful remarks that I hear coming from across the floor from his side so often have indicated to me that his party and all hon. gentlemen in it must have been old for all time, because they see so little hope and so little good in the future. Therefore it is refreshing to know that not too long ago he was young.
Pensions
One thing disturbs me in all this, Mr, Speaker, namely this tendency, amounting almost to a phobia to find names which are pleasing and pleasant; I think they are known as euphemisms in English definition. It is going to be a very difficult thing for this house if with every measure that is brought before the house and with every statute presently extant on the statute books we are going to have to find these euphemous names, these euphemisms, for bills; names pleasing to everyone and names which will leave no connotation of anything evil or wrong or unpopular. For instance, I see great difficulty with the representation act. It might be that we will have to change the name of that bill to something like "An act to find responsible, reputable and jolly good representation"- and, of course, this would not apply to all hon. members of this house.
Then I am concerned with the Criminal Code. We could not have that evil word "criminal" lying around loose in our statute books. We would undoubtedly have to change the name of that time-worn statute to something like, "An act for the good citizens who have temporarily strayed from the straight and narrow". I think, also-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He is only killing time, anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
Chair considers that the hon. member has strayed from the straight and narrow, and I wonder whether he would stay as closely as possible to the resolution which is before us, which deals with changing the names of two acts.


John James Greene: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do feel there is some analogy with regard to other statutes which possibly should be renamed, if we are going to embark on the rather costly administrative process of renaming statutes in the interest of having names pleasing to all. I thought it might be of some help to this house if we considered the very broad area in which we might be embarking, if we do proceed on this path. Again, if we are going to amend or change the name of the Criminal Code, I think we shall have to include in the new name those gentlemen who are in favour of lotteries. They will certainly have to be included. We will not call them criminals, because I do not think that is correct at all; and in deference in particular to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) I think we should just spell out that these gentlemen are not criminals but are merely in favour of lotteries.

Pensions
The statute that gave me the most trouble, Mr. Speaker, when I was considering this very-wide area in which we are embarking, was the Income Tax Act, and it is very difficult to find a name which would be pleasing to all and offend none with respect to that iniquitous bill which has so long borne the unhappy name of the Income Tax Act. The best I can do in helping this house-


Howard Russell MacEwan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; when I introduced the resolution Your Honour suggested that I confine my remarks to it. I quickly took Your Honour's advice. I wonder if that great, knowledgeable member for Renfrew South, who adorns the west block, would now get back to the resolution itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I could say to the house that the Chair is enjoying the remarks of the hon. member equally as much as the house; but I would hope he would confine himself to the terms of the resolution before us.


John James Greene: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think we are dealing here with a matter that is on a twofold plane. We are dealing, first, with the renaming of statutes, and second we are dealing with the subject of old age. Therefore with respect I would submit that remarks referable to either of these basic ingredients of the hon. gentleman's resolution are pertinent and relevant and I trust will be of some help to hon. members in determining their respective choices in regard to the resolution. Again, on the question of renaming the acts, if it would be of some help to this house I might suggest that the Income Tax Act be renamed something along these lines, "An act for the purpose of removing coin of the realm from the pockets of those who have to those who have not". I feel this would be the type of concise and appropriate name which surely would not offend the great majority of our people. I am sure most hon. members of this house, from all I have heard since I have been here, receive little support from those who have great wealth, those from whom it would be removed; so the name should bear the approval of all hon. members as well as all citizens.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think when we are speaking about names, whether names have a particular connotation, whether a name is particularly offensive, or whether a certain name is better than another, it would not be right, proper or fitting if we based our deliberations on that score without considering the best words ever spoken with regard to the question of what's in a name. I quote from Romeo and Juliet, act 2, scene 2, line 40:
O be some other name! What's Montague?
It is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face.
Nor any part belonging to a man.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
I offer these words of wisdom to the hon. member for Pictou and suggest that the gist of the old age pension bill and the Old Age Assistance Act is very much more what has been brought to our attention by hon. members, and certainly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely what is in the bill itself. How much are these people receiving, and are they getting it with a minimum of embarrassment and without a means test? I believe the old age pension by any other name would smell just as sweet if we could see to it that that pension, accompanied with the Canada pension plan which is shortly to be before the house, provides the older people of this country with the wherewithal whereby they may live out their senior years in dignity and without want. This, surely, is the important matter, not the name of the bill itself.
In the not too distant future we hope to be doing some serious thinking in regard to the Canada pension plan, which will indeed fit in with the present legislation as it now exists. If the hon. member feels there is some very great national benefit in his resolution he might raise the matter at such time, either by way of amendment in committee when discussing the proposed measure, or in some other way.
There is one other aspect to the hon. member's desire to change this name which troubles me. This is the inference that there is something disreputable or unworthy or something we should hide in the very words "old age". I submit to the house that there is nothing unworthy or to be ashamed of about this expression, or which should be hidden under a basket some place. In this regard the legislation which is being brought in, as the hon. member who presented this bill has pointed out over the years, has certainly recognized that old age is a time of dignity worthy of security and well-being. In this connection I think the writers through the ages have recognized the worth of old age. It is not a time for despair. No person should be looked down upon because he is old. I think George Bernard Shaw put it as well as any of us could when he stated something along these lines-that until you are 60 you really have not learned enough to be of much use to anyone; and until you are 80 you have not had enough practice in application to put that knowledge you have acquired to use. I think Victor Hugo put it very well when he said:

When grace is joined with wrinkles it is adorable. There is an unspeakable dawn in a happy old age.
I should like to close my remarks on this delightful and worth-while subject by leaving with the house the thought that I do not think we should do anything here to discredit old age. I do not think there is anything more attractive in the words "senior citizen" than there is in the words "old age". Old age means that a person has given a great many years to this country, to bringing up his family, to paying his taxes, and to earning that very assistance which is paid to him, not by way of any handout from a government or from parliament, but by reason of his playing his part as a citizen of this country and earning whatever emoluments we pay him.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I point out to the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that in my remarks the hon. member would have noticed, if he had been listening closely, and as he will observe in Hansard, that I said nothing to cast any reflection on our senior citizens by using the words "old age" disparagingly.


John James Greene: I concur in those remarks of the hon. member. I was not inferring that the hon. member had, except that in the introduction of his resolution I was disturbed by the thought that there might be left with the press and with the people the impression that either this house or the hon. member felt that the use of the words "old age" something undesirable. I suggest the words "old age" are probably those most worthy of respect and dignity: And may all hon. members of the house continue to serve long, that they will some day earn this appellation.


Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) on his very generous motives for introducing this motion in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to speak on that motion but in any case, I should like to quote from it. It reads as follows:
That in the opinion of the house, the government should consider the advisability of changing the terminology in the designation "old age"-
So, the point is to change the designation "old age" for the designation "senior citizen". Any dictionary will give you, as definition of old age, the following:
The advanced years in human life.
So, I understand that this discussion is simply an empty battle of words which does not contribute much to the promotion of public business.
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, if I may be out of order for only 30 seconds, I should like to say that I deeply regret that because of our present system of procedure, parliament has to discuss during a whole hour a simple matter of terminology when there are problems of extreme importance facing the country.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) put it so well, this motion is only an attempt to find euphemisms, designations to alleviate other designations meaning the same thing.
As a matter of fact, in the phrase old age, there is absolutely nothing reflecting upon a state of life which most people are to know some day.
As a matter of fact, there are two stages in life: birth and death. The main steps between those two stages are childhood, the teen-age period, middle age and old age. Consequently, I fail to see the usefulness of dealing indefinitely with a mere question of terminology.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if we were going to deal with the terminology of each of our laws, we would get nowhere, and we would get lost in useless talking, without achieving anything.
Let us talk about the word "pension". Is it necessary to insist on that word and say that the fact that a person receives a pension establishes a certain analogy between the words pensioner and parasite? Should we not change the word "pensioner" in order that the person who receives a pension from the government will not be compared to a parasite?
When we talk about the pension to veterans, do we mean that veterans who receive pensions refuse now to fight?
When we speak of unemployment insurance, do we not throw discredit on the unemployed by considering him as a loafer?
Again, would it be necessary to change the terminology of all those acts and say that the unemployed is a loafer, a parasite, that it is an insult to call him "unemployed"?
There is in Quebec a pension for unmarried women. But what an insult, Mr. Speaker, to think that a woman has to stay unmarried. Again, would it not be better to change the terminology of that act? That is an insult to the charm and attractiveness of that sex which ought not to be called the weaker one, because, on the contrary, it exerts a far greater power than one would imagine.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there has been too much discussion, and that is why I

Pensions
want to return to my seat as quickly as possible. In my opinion, we have spent too much time debating a subject which, granted, shows the best of intentions on the part of the hon. member for Pictou, who wants to bring in a new expression in the hope of improving a situation which, to his way of thinking, is such as to put older people in a position of inferiority.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the proper meaning of a term or expression should not be confused with the disparaging intonation it is sometimes given. As a matter of fact, one often calls somebody "old man" or "young man". It may be injurious in both cases but it is only a matter of intonation and not of semantics or real meaning of the word.
In fact, what would the reaction of the hon. member for Pictou be if I were to tell him one day that he is not old enough to be a senator? Lmagine if he would like then to be considered as an old man.
If I told him that he is too young to be a minister, then the word "young" could be disparaging simply because of the manner in which it is spoken.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) that if we are to consider every act in order to see what term or word could be changed, parliament would waste its time, like it did tonight, whereas if the procedure were amended, we could look into far more important situations likely to prove beneficial to all the people.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very moving and interesting debate this afternoon on the motion before us. One must try to get in perspective the case that has been made by the mover of the resolution. He has declared to the house that he intended no aspersion whatsoever with regard to the use of the words "old age" or the recipients of old age assistance. However, in reading the resolution itself I do not think his wording was the most happy choice. It reads in part as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of changing the terminology... to a more worthy designation, so that the aforesaid will be known as the "senior citizens assistance act" and "senior citizens security act" respectively.
I cannot help but agree with the contention that has been made by my colleague, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. [Mr. Choquette.l
Choquette) that there is in the wording of the resolution a suggestion that the term "old age" in the present legislation is a less than worthy designation. The contention has been made by several members on this side of the house. The hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) quoted from an editorial in the Ottawa Journal which said that they expected and hoped that everyone over 70 would soon be sending letters to the hon. member for Lafontaine for trying to change the words.
I think we all agree there is a serious problem in what we are trying to do in this day and age. We cannot escape things by changing names, although sometimes we think we are. I think there is a virtue in recognizing terms for their value and for what they are. The term "old age" has been used in our language since the beginning of time. My colleagues have pointed out that it is an honourable term. It is used with honour in our poetry, our literature and our social relations. If we try to undertake measures which in a rather superficial way make changes suggesting that we are somewhat queasy about these things or worried about them, if this is the motivation in our literature and legislation, then I think it is less than worthy of the house. I do not know whether any large number of those who come under these programs feel that they are under any stigma when they pick up their cheques. I am not aware of any resolutions passed by associations asking for this change. I am not aware of submissions-


Howard Russell MacEwan: There are a lot of things you are not aware of.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That may well be.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You have not been here very long; you will learn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the house leader place on Hansard what we will be dealing with tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will proceed with the second reading and committee stage of the Blue Water bridge bill. After that we will take the resolution introducing the Post Office Act amendments which will be followed, if there is time left, by the resolution introducing amendments to the Exchequer Court Act. This will be followed, always if there is time left, by the

Business of the House
resolution introducing a bill providing for mittee will be studying estimates of the the payment of certain provincial fees and Department of Public Works. I wish to an-taxes by crown corporations. Then	nounce that on Monday we will have a supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it will be Friday.	motion.


Guy Favreau: 


[Stage Direction]
-it will be Friday, so that At six o'clock the house adjourned, without all we need know is that on Friday the com- question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 30, 1964