1964-05-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter which constitutes an insult to all members and to the House of Commons.
Yesterday, members of our group came in the house with miniature flags. And as reported in the newspapers, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) cried out that we had no right to display such rags in the house. Everybody here heard perfectly the hon. member at that time.
My question of privilege is to the effect that in yesterday's Hansard, on page 3317 of the French edition, in the right-hand column, the statement of the hon. member for Marquette has been changed and the word rag replaced by the word flag. I feel that the hon. member should have the courage to maintain his stupid remarks, since he had the odious courage to make them.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member concerned the matter will have to be put aside or delayed. In any event, I do not see any question of privilege here. If anything it is a complaint.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 307
Mr. Beaule:: 1.	Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare intend to appoint a commissioner for amateur sport in Canada?
2.	Does the minister intend to defray all the expenses incurred by the Canadian Olympic teams representing this country aborad?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. It is not the intention to appoint a commissioner for amateur sport in Canada.
The Fitness and Amateur Sport Act provides for a national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport of 30 members to advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With the advice of this body the minister works in co-operation with and aids fitness and amateur sport groups but does not attempt to control their activities. Any regulatory official for sports would have to be appointed by the sports bodies concerned.
2.	Under the fitness and amateur sport program, assistance is provided to help finance the cost of sending Canadian teams to Olympic games. Grants are made only to the Canadian co-ordinating agency which, in the case of Olympic games, is the Canadian Olympic association, with the amount given not exceeding one half of the travel expenses of approved team personnel at economy rates, one half of reasonable living expenses while outside of Canada, and the cost of necessary transport for sports equipment.
The Canadian Olympic association has received $123,000 under the program to assist in sending Canadian teams to the 1964 Olympic winter and summer games, as well as $63,000 to assist in sending Canadian teams to the 1963 Pan American games. In addition, the national sports governing bodies being represented at these games have received financial assistance to hold national championships and pre-Olympic trials leading to these international games.


RESULTS OF NATIONAL DEFENCE REORGANIZATION
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has the reduction in the defence budget of the United States affected in any way defence installations in Canada and, if so, in what way?
2.	Following the reduction of expenditures and the reorganization in the Department of National Defence, (a) which military installations were affected (b) what was the reduction in each case (c) what personnel were affected and (d) what steps were taken in order to find new jobs for the civilians involved?

Answer: 1. The reduction in the United States defence budget had no apparent effect on defence establishments in Canada.

Questions
2. (a), (b) and (c):
Military
establishments
affected
Royal Canadian Navy Naval supply depot, Lynn Creek, Vancouver North, B.C.
Munition depot, Kamloops, B.C.
Naval armament depot, Longueuil, Que.
Fort Pepperrell, Newfoundland
Point Edward Naval Base, Sydney, N.S.
10 auxiliary ships
Escort repair ship H.M.C.S. Cape Breton 10 mine sweepers 3 destroyers
2	naval reserve air squadrons:
Victoria, B.C.
Toronto, Ont.
Naval reserve division H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
H.M.C.S. Prevost, London, Ont.
H.M.C.S. Queen, Regina, Sask.
H.M.C.S. Nonsuch, Edmonton, Alta.
H.M.C.S. Chatham, Prince Rupert, B.C. H.M.C.S. Kitchener supply ship, Kitchener, Ont.
Canadian Army Northwest road system Fort Churchill, Man.
Hagersville, Ont.
Royal Canadian Air Force
Churchill
Resolute Bay
Vancouver
Calgary
Saskatoon
Hamilton
St. Hubert
Torbay
St. Sylvestre
Parent
Edgar
Beaverbank
Uplands (testproving central establishment)
Rockcliffe
Penhold
Grostenquin
Auxiliary units
Mid-Canada Line (western section)
Air Defence Command (reduction of aircraft allotment at various bases)
Approximate	Personnel
reduction of	involved
expenditures	Military Civilian
$	
275,000	1 38
400,000	150
560,000	176
1,657,000	10 221
2,743,000	2 440
370,000	70
225,000	190
1,350,000	430
2,499,000	675
250.000 887.000	3 15 44 4
9,499,000	392	5694,764,000	443	272654,000	58	23891,000	90	750,000	51	13424,000	231	1591,138,000	260	275722,000	123	45170,000	62	30141,000	73	371,081,000	245	1401,500,000	160	751,500,000	167	661,500,000	150	811,500,000	171	73445,000	137	292,000	127	321,600,000	495	1051,540,000	643	2,545,000	153	6,500,000	39	2,400,000	382	
[Mr. Latulippe.l

(d) The following action was taken to help civil staff in finding new jobs.
(i)	Close liaison has been established with the Department of Labour, the national employment service and the civil service commission in the search for new jobs, inside and outside the public service.
(ii)	Close co-operation also with the other government departments in order to determine if there are vacant jobs which would suit surplus personnel.
(iii)	Action was taken to have surplus employees fill on the spot the required documents for their transfer by the national employment service.
(iv)	The surplus personnel to be reassigned is taken into account in departmental recruiting.
(v)	Personal interviews are given to surplus employees to inform them of the advantages at their disposal and to find out their preferences in respect to acceptance of another position.
(vi)	The required authorization had been obtained to help the employees who have attained the level above the first promotion grade and having five years service or more to pay their moving expenses when they are transferred to another place of work in the public service.
(vii)	The necessary authorization has been requested and obtained for employees who wish to do so to retire at age 50 with an actuarial adjustment.
Questions
(viii)	In the case of employees who qualified for special duties in the department, consideration will be given to the possibility of paying all moving expenses.
(ix)	A program has been established under which young employees liable to be laid off will replace employees enjoying an extension after the normal retirement age.


FAWZIA AMIR HANKO
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has a deportation order been issued against Fawzia Amir Hanko of Montreal and, if so, when will it be carried out?
2.	If not, has such an order been requested and, if so (a) by whom (b) for what reason (c) when was it requested?
3.	Is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration now considering deportation orders and, if so (a) how many (b) against whom are they directed (c) what are the reasons for each such order?
4.	Were any persons deported during the last five years following requests for such orders and, if so, how many?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. Yes, but under special authority vested in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in section 8 of the Immigration Act, Mrs. Hanko has been authorized to remain in Canada on a temporary basis for one year and her case will again be reviewed at the expiration of that period.
2. Not applicable.
3	and 4. Yes. See attached table. It is the policy of the government not to divulge the names of persons against whom deportation orders have been issued.

DEPORTATION ORDERS ISSUED BY CAUSE AND DISPOSITION 1 Jan. 1958-31 March 1964 SITUATION AS OF 28 APRIL, 1964
Cause for issuance of deportation order	Ordered deported	Deportation order quashed or appeal allowed	Deportation effected	To be deported when practicable	Deportation suspended	Awaiting decisionCriminality	2,929	80	1,905	176	683	85Mental and physical	631	31	420	20	141	19Illegal entry	2,069	131	1,623	4	212	99Non-compliance with regulations	2,222	264	1,784	2	153	19Not bona fide immigrants or non-immigrants	2,492	109	2,356	-	25	2Persons accompanying deports	934	128	583	4	193	26Others	1,470	59	1,370	1	34	6Totals	12,747(1)	802	10,041(1)	207	1,441	256
Note (1)-Includes approximately 6,400 persons refused admission when applying at Canadian Immigration ports of entry and who were returned to the United States.
Source: Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
3212	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


PRE-CONFEDERATION DISCUSSIONS, NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Macquarrie: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to include the fullest available record of the Charlottetown conference of 1864 in his projected volume on pre-1867 confederation discussions of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: The intention of the government is to assemble as much official and useful information as possible on pre-confederation debates. This would include debates in Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and records of the Charlottetown conference of 1864.


* FEED OATS AND BARLEY PRICES
Mr. Vincent: What was the price of (a) No. 1 feed oats, in Montreal, for the week of the 15th of each of the following months: September, October, November and December 1963; and January, February and March of 1964 (b) No. 1 feed barley, at Montreal, for the week of the 15th of each of the following months; September, October, November and December of 1963; and January, February and March of 1964?


Mr. Beer:: Wholesale to retail prices per hundredweight, after deduction of freight and storage assistance, basis on track Montreal for the middle week of each month.
	(a>
(b)
	No. 1	No. 1
	feed oats	feed barley
September,	1963 2.39	2.30October	2.44	2.48November	2.44	2.45December	2.43	2.42January, 1964 2.47	2.46February	2.46	2.41March	2.47	2.43


PRODUCTION OF F-104 PLANES FOR GREECE AND TURKEY
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Are 120, or any similar number of F-104's being (a) produced, or (b) assembled at Canadair Limited, Montreal for delivery to Greece and Turkey under any mutual aid program for NATO allies in Europe?
2.	What is the cost to Canada of its share in the program for delivery of such planes to (a) Greece (b) Turkey?
3.	What are the numbers of planes to be delivered under any such program to (a) Greece, and (b) Turkey?
4.	What is the anticipated date of delivery of the planes to (a) Greece (b) Turkey?
5.	What is the range in miles of such planes?
6.	For what type of armament are the planes to be fitted?
7.	Is such armament conventional or nuclear?
8.	Are there any limitations or means of control of the employment of such planes by Greece and Turkey respectively?


Mr. Hellyer:: 
GRANTS TO N.S. AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITIONS
Mr. Crouse: Is the government considering the re-instatement of grants to Nova Scotia agricultural exhibitions which have been discontinued due to the government instituted austerity program?


Mr. Hays:: The entire question of federal assistance to fairs and exhibitions is under consideration at the present time. It is anticipated that a statement on government policy on this matter will be made shortly.

Questions


APPLICATIONS FOR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
Mr. Cowan: How much time was necessary to process through the Department of Transport from the dates of receipt of the applications to the dates of the issuance of letters of authority for the following licensed CATV companies:	Cottagers
Security and Service Ltd., Minden; Louis M. Najeau, East Broughton; Harry Ronson, Dorchester; Western Cable TV Limited, Woodstock, Ont.; Norman Pare, Waterville; Columbia Cablevision Ltd., New Westminster, B.C., Metro Videon, Pin-awa, Man.; H. P. Whiskin, Mesachie Lake, P.Q; Neighbourhood Television, Ltd., Coliingwood, Ont.; Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd., Scarborough, Ont.; Video Corporation Ltd., lie Bizard, P.Q.; and Rediffusion Incorporated, Hazeldean, Ont.?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The length of time involved in processing each of the following CATV applications by the Department of Transport was as follows: Cottagers Security and Service Ltd., Minden, 7 months, 13 days; Louis M. Nadeau, East Broughton, 3 months, 22 days; Harry Ronson, Dorchester, 3 months, 24 days; Western Cable TV Limited, Woodstock, Ont., 2 months; Norman Pare, Waterville, 1 month, 17 days; Columbia Cablevision Ltd., New Westminster, B.C., 3 months, 12 days; Metro Videon, Pinawa, Man., 26 days; H. P. Whiskin, Mesachie Lake, P.Q., 2 months, 21 days; Neighbourhood Television Ltd., Coliingwood, Ont., 2 months, 7 days; Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd., Scarborough, Ont., 3 months, 1 day; Video Corporation Ltd*., lie Bizard, P.Q., 2 months, 2 days; Rediffusion Incorporated, Hazeldean, Ont., 1 month, 4 days.
*Tel-Video (Canada) Inc. was the first licensee.


APPLICATIONS FOR WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS, BEAUCE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Perron: 1.	How many residents of Beauce county have applied for the $500 winter housing construction bonus and what is the name of each?
2.	How many persons applied directly to the government?
3.	How many persons obtained the bonus through a contractor?
4.	To whom were such bonuses paid?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1, 2, 3, 4. The date of final inspection on housing units constructed under the winter house building incentive program was April 15, 1964 and statistical tabulations respecting the program as a whole are not yet available.


TECHNICAL TRAINING
Mr. Basford: 1.	For the fiscal year 1963-64 (a) by provinces, how many applications were approved under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act for financial assistance to the capital cost of training facilities (b) what is the amount of federal

contribution to be paid to each province under the above approved applications (c) which applications, and the federal contributions to be paid under each one, were approved for the province of British Columbia (d) were any applications from the province of British Columbia refused (e) are any applications from the province of British Columbia awaiting approval?
2.	Under the formula for the equitable distribution among the provinces of federal contributions under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act for financial assistance to the capital cost of training facilities, how much has already been paid, or agreed to be paid, to each province, expressed both in dollars and as a percentage of the total amount each province is entitled to receive under the formula, and how much remains to be paid or agreed to be paid to each province under the formula?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Five hundred and fifty nine applications or submissions were approved from April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1964, 46 of which were approved during April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964.
	Total no.	Total no.
	of capital	of capital
	projects	projects
	from	approved
	Apr.1/61-	Apr. 1/63-
	Mar. 31/63	Mar. 31/64
Newfoundland	15		
Prince Edward Island 6		2
Nova Scotia	14	1New Brunswick	14	1Quebec	87	14Ontario	259	19Manitoba	56	1Saskatchewan	8	-Alberta	33	6Brtish Columbia	19	2Yukon Territory	1	-Northwest Territories 1	-513	46(b) The federal	contribution to each	province with respect to 1(a) is:	Apr. 1/61-	Apr. 1/63-Mar. 31/63	Mar. 31/64$	$Newfoundland	21,055,075	358,250*Prince Edward	Island	2,065,555	609,413Nova Scotia	7,191,629	462,500New Brunswick	4,792,504	957,849Quebec	23,743,419	6,426,321Ontario	200,089,747	7,126,619Manitoba	4,934,802	45,931Saskatchewan	8,224,611	143,220Alberta	36,994,715	1,059,299British Columbia	13,585,168	1,265,444Yukon Territory	682,796	3,561*Northwest Territories 64,800	3,000
* Cancelled or revised submissions.

(c)	The following applications concerning
buildings and equipment were approved for British Columbia during 1963-64:	British
Columbia vocational school, Burnaby, $38,620; North Vancouver technical vocational secondary school, $416,200; Point Grey junior senior secondary school, Vancouver, $346,616; Kootenay school of art, $250; British Columbia vocational school, Victoria, $1,000; British Columbia vocational school, Nanaimo, $19,477.
(d)	No.
Questions
(e) The following applications from British Columbia requesting a 75 per cent federal contribution have been held pending the amendment of the technical and vocational training agreement to permit a 75 per cent federal share: British Columbia vocational school, Nanaimo; Gladstone junior senior high school, Vancouver; John Oliver junior senior secondary school, Vancouver; Vancouver technical school.
The amended agreement has gone to the provinces for signature.
2. *
* Max. fed. contr.	Appr. fed. contr.	Appr. fed.	Amount ofat 75% based upon	(or commitment)	contr. as %	fed. contr.$480 per capita	to capital projects	of max. at	available at(15-19 yr. age group)	Apr. 1/61-Mar. 31/64	75%	75%$	$	$Nfld. 21,037,900	20,696,825	98.3	341,075P.E.I. 4,260,000	2,674,968	62.8	1,585,032N.S. 30,834,700	7,654,129	24.7	23,180,571N.B. 25,686,700	5,750,353	22.4	19,936,347Que. 224,364,400	30,169,740	13.4	194,194,660Ont. 209,703,800	207,216,366	98.3	2,487,434Man. 33,987,800	4,989,733	15.0	29,007,067Sask. 34,974,700	8,367,831	23.3	26,686,869Alta. 47,521,900	38,054,014	80.3	9,467,886B.C. 54,073,400	14,850,612	27.4	39,222,788N.W.T. 815,500	67,800	8.3	747,700Y.T. 679,235	679,235	100.0	
* When this limit is reached federal contribution returns to 50 per cent.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF JOINT INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) Indian and non-Indian children who are legally adopted should assume the status of their adoptive parents.
(b)	The status and membership rights of illegitimate children should conform, where possible, to provincial laws.
(c)	The term "enfranchisement" should be deleted from the act.
(d)	Indian women who marry non-Indians should not receive a per capita share of band funds for a period of five years, but retain the right to return to their reserve in the intervening period."?


Hubert Badanai: (a), (b), (c) and (d) These recommendations would require legislation to implement with relevant changes in existing provisions of the Indian Act. A review of the Indian Act is proceeding as quickly as sound and thorough consideration will permit with the objective of submitting appropriate amendments.



[Stage Direction]
Question No. 864
Mr. Howard:: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) The Indian Act should be amended to formally recognize lawful possession of land held by an Indian for 20 years and also to permit band councils to allocate land on a conditional basis.
(b)	Designated band councils should be authorized to issue leases of reserve land for a period not exceeding five years without a surrender and/or approval of the minister.
(c)	The Indian affairs branch should withdraw from the management of lands held by an individual Indian who should be enabled to lease his land himself for designated purposes.
(d)	The Indian Act should be amended to clearly indicate the word "surrender" is confined to sale of land.
(e)	As the present provisions of section 88 of the act bar many Indians from ordinary sources of credit, the section should be amended to permit individual Indians to waive the protection afforded as regards their personal property: and band revenue funds should be subject to attachment in respect of judgments for damages and unfulfilled contracts."?

Questions


Hubert Badanai: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) These recommendations would require legislation to implement with relevant changes in existing provisions of the Indian Act. A review of the Indian Act is proceeding as quickly as sound and thorough consideration will permit with the objective of submitting appropriate amendments.



Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) Greater responsibility should be placed upon Indian bands in matters of credit.
(b)	Band councils should be enabled to take adequate security on loans with the right to foreclose in case of default.
(c)	Where a band does not have sufficient funds for loaning purposes, a system of making secured loans to bands for re-loan to band members should be instituted.
(d)	An appropriate penalty should be provided in the Indian Act for misuse of band funds by band councils."?


Hubert Badanai: (a), (b), (c) and (d) These recommendations would require legislation to implement with relevant changes in existing provisions of the Indian Act. A review of the Indian Act is proceeding as quickly as sound and thorough consideration will permit with the objective of submitting appropriate amendments.


FRENCH PROGRAM, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many letters and telephone calls has the C.B.C. radio station CJBC Toronto received from its listening audience since it introduced its present limited French program?
2.	How many of these letters are favourable?
3.	How many are unfavourable?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Since it introduced French language programming in April 1962 radio station CJBC at Toronto has received a total of 1,143 pieces of correspondence and 608 telephone calls concerning the change in programs.
2.	587 letters, 76 telephone calls.
3.	556 letters, 532 telephone calls.


SHED NO. 1, CHICOUTIMI
Mr. Cole (Chicouiimi): 1.	Was Agences Maritimes Inc. moved from shed No. 1 in the port of Chicoutimi and, if so, did the company lose some important customers since this move who declined to store their goods under poor conditions?
2.	Is there a plan to raise the floor of this shed so that goods stored in it will not be flooded by tides?

3.	Will a night watchman be employed to protect all the sheds in the port of Chicoutimi?
4.	Have the premises formerly occupied by Agences Maritimes Inc. been rented and, if so, to whom?

Answer: The national harbours board advises as follows:
1.	Agences Maritimes Inc. moved from shed No. 2 to shed No. 1. We have no knowledge of any loss of business resulting from the change in shed locations.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Shed No. 2 is under lease to Allied Chemicals of Canada Limited.


C.B.C. FILM ON SEAL HUNTING
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received complaints from a representative, or representatives, of the Montreal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or from anyone else, protesting that the C.B.C. cut sequences from the seal hunting film and, if so, (a) how many complaints were received (b) what reply was made by the C.B.C.?
2.	Is the C.B.C. authorized to do its own censoring?
3.	What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such cases?

Answer: 1. (a) and (b) The C.B.C. did not
receive any protests to that effect and no answer was therefore needed.
2. The C.B.C. was entrusted by parliament with the operation of a national radio and television broadcasting service. Because of these terms of reference, the corporation is entitled to choose and evaluate the programs broadcast on its various channels. This responsibility is not to be delegated to any outside body.


USE OF FRENCH AT NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Is the Minister of National Defence aware that his department located on Elgin street uses English only as a working language and that employment cards of the personnel are written in English only?
2.	Will the minister ensure that French is used for French speaking employees?

Answer: 1. The Minister of National Defence is aware of the working conditions prevailing at national defence headquarters.
2. French is used where there are French speaking employees. Circulars, communications and letters which are of interest to them as individuals are distributed in French as well as in English. Various forms have been published, either with a bilingual text

or, separately, in both languages. When stocks are out of print so that it would be necessary to renew them, all forms which should be filled in or signed by the civilian personnel will be bilingual or printed separately in French and in English.


APPLICATIONS FOR WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUSES, QUEBEC
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	How many applications received from the province of Quebec and the constituency of Compton-Frontenac were approved in connection with the $500 premium paid under the winter housing program?
2.	How many applications were sent directly to the government by individuals?
3.	How many applications were sent by contractors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1, 2, 3. The date of final inspection on housing units constructed under the winter house building incentive program was April 15, 1964 and statistical tabulations respecting the program as a whole are not yet available.


UNFILLED PROVISIONS OF INDIAN TREATIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 926
Frank Howard: What action has been taken with respect to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry, appointed on June 25, 1959, to inquire generally into all matters arising out of unfulfilled provisions of treaties 8 and 11 as they applied to Indians of the Mackenzie district?


Hubert Badanai: The recommendations of the committee of inquiry are under serious study with a view to enabling the government to adopt a course of action which will be in the best interests of all the individuals concerned.


REFINED SUGAR CONSUMPTION
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What has been the total annual consumption of refined sugar in Canada for the past five years?
2.	What has been the consumption per month for the past two years?
Answer: 1. Annual consumption of refined sugar in Canada during the past five years as measured by refiners' sales and imports, but excluding wholesale and retail inventory changes, is as follows:
1960
1962
Refiners' sales and imports of refined sugar '000 lb. 1,682,102 1,702,608 1,741,370 1,819,633 1,766,473
Questions
2. Monthly consumption of refined sugar in Canada during the past two years as measured by refiners' sales and imports but excluding wholesale and retail inventory changes was as follows:
	1962	1963
	'000 lb.	'000 lb.
J anuary	123,204	140,904February	130,725	126,980March	138,008	148,954April	120,060	126,360May	157,726	185,353June	169,688	117,250July	190,931	157,691August	175,300	167,420September	163,689	179,950October	196,141	172,186November	132,188	112,800December	121,965	130,628


RETIREMENT OF R.C.A.F. OFFICERS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What is the number of R.C.A.F. officers who were recently forced into premature retirement?
2.	What was the rank, and the average length of service of those officers both on short service and permanent commissions?
3.	How and when does the government intend to compensate these officers for (a) loss of pension (b) loss of salary?
4.	Why were these officers discharged without any indication of compensation arrangements?
5.	What is the amount of financial loss, both in pension and pay, to a flight lieutenant who has been forced into retirement two years before the normal retirement at 20 years of service?
6.	What are the plans of the government to assist in the rehabilitation of those officers forced to retire who are over 40 years of age?
7.	What are the plans of the government for the early retirement of "surplus" senior officers?
Answer: 1. The number of R.C.A.F. officers who were advised that they are to be prematurely retired is 534.
2.	Rank
Permanent commission
Flight lieutenant Flying officers
Short service commission Flight lieutenant Flying officer
Average service
19.8 years 23.4 years
8.5	years
7.5	years
3.	The government is providing a special financial benefit plan to assist officers in reestablishing themselves.
4.	All officers being released prematurely have been advised of this special financial benefit plan.
5.	Pension is based on 2 per cent of the average pay and allowances during the highest continuous six years of service for each year of pensionable service. Subject to approval of parliament no reduction will be made in the annuity calculated on this basis because of early retirement. The financial loss, if any,

Questions
would depend on circumstances including the salary of his civil position following retirement.
6.	In addition to the financial compensation referred to above, normal assistance will be given through the present R.C.A.F. rehabilitation program. This service is supplemental to the national employment service.
7.	Integration and eventual unification will result in reductions in the over-all strengths of the armed forces but it is not possible to detail at this time the exact extent of such reductions in relation to rank structure.


* OPENING OF AIRPORT TERMINAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What is the target date lor completion of the new airport terminal building at London, Ontario?
2.	What is the proposed official opening date?
3.	Will there be an official reception at the time of opening as there was in Toronto?
4.	Will the local members of parliament be invited to attend?


Mr. Cantin:: 1. The estimated completion date of the new airport terminal building at London, Ontario is August 31, 1964.
2.	The official opening will take place approximately one month after the completion of the building.
3.	No plans have yet been developed for the official opening of the terminal building.
4.	It is the normal practice to invite the local members of parliament to this function.


INDUSTRY BRIEFS TO TARIFF NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	In regard to Canada's participation in the Kennedy round of commercial negotiations which will begin in Geneva on May 4, how many briefs were submitted by Canadian industry to the Canadian committee on customs tariffs and trade?
2.	Which companies, groups, or individuals submitted briefs?
3.	What are the main ideas contained in these briefs?

Answer: 1. Up to May 1, 1964, 285.
2.	The Canadian committee on customs tariffs and trade was set up by the government to receive briefs from companies whose interests may be affected by the trade negotiations which will be held shortly. The committee has indicated that the briefs will be considered as confidential. Consequently, it is not possible to divulge the names of the companies, groups or individuals who have submitted them or their contents. The chairman of the committee informs me that the response has been most encouraging up until now.
3.	See No. 2 above.


CANADA-JAPAN MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Basford: 1.	How many meetings in 1963 and 1964 have been held by the Canada-Japan ministerial committee, and at what times were such meetings held?
2.	When, and at what place, is the next meeting planned?
3.	During the fiscal year 1963-64, how many Canadian trade missions or visits were made to the Orient, and what are the details thereof?
4.	For the 1964-65 fiscal year, what trade missions and visits are presently planned to the Orient, and the details thereof?
Answer:	1. Two meetings. In Tokyo on
January 11 and 12, 1963 and in Ottawa on September 25 and 26, 1963.
2.	At the September meeting the committee accepted the invitation of the Japanese government to hold the next meeting in Tokyo. The time of the meeting will be decided by consultation between the two governments.
3.	During the fiscal year 1963-64 two trade missions visited the Orient. These were:
(a)	Consulting engineering mission to southeast Asia, this was a small reconnaissance mission designed to explore prospects for the employment of Canadian consulting engineering services and engineering equipment in these areas. The three consulting engineers who made up this mission membership met with officials of government agencies and private firms to discuss contemplated projects and long term capital development plans in Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand from February 2 to March 24, 1964.
The engineering firms who participated in the mission reported on different specialty fields such as power and river basin resources; pulp and paper; irrigation and drainage; water supply and sewerage; industrial engineering; transportation facilities; harbours and docks; and engineering for the mining industry.
This was one of three missions undertaken to explore foreign requirements for Canadian consulting engineering services and engineering equipment.
(b)	Fisheries technical mission to Japan, this mission conducted an on the spot investigation into the production and marketing procedures of Japanese fisheries from March 24 to April 4, 1964. During the tour of Japan the mission members visited the Japanese federal fisheries agency, diversified fish plants, fishing ports, manufacturers of fishing gear and equipment and wholesale and retail fish markets.
The mission membership included the assistant deputy minister of industry and commerce, province of Quebec, the deputy

minister of fisheries, province of New Brunswick and the chief of the fisheries division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.
4.	During the fiscal year 1964-65 the two trade missions planned to visit the Orient have now departed. These missions are:
(a)	Air industries trade mission to Japan, Australia and New Zealand, this mission was organized to promote products in all areas of the Canadian aeronautics industry. The eleven man membership included representatives from manufacturers of aircraft, aircraft engines, airborne communications systems, airborne navigation systems and component parts.
The mission's primary objective is to assist the Canadian aircraft manufacturing industries to increase their long term sales of civil and military aircraft and aeronautical equipment to the countries visited. Discussions with top government, military and business leaders enabled the mission members to learn of existing and future aircraft requirements and aeronautical programs in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
The Japanese sector of the mission itinerary lasted from May 9 to 17 during which time meetings were held in Tokyo and Nagoya.
(b)	Oilseeds mission to Japan, this nine man mission studied the Japanese market for oil seeds during a two week tour which lasted from April 18 to May 2.
The membership was comprised of seven top executives of Canadian grain companies and pools, a representative of the prairie regional laboratories of the national research council and a member of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The mission members visited Japanese oil seeds importers, processing plants, associations and research establishments in Tokyo, Kjmshu, Osaka and Hiratsuka to explore sales of Canadian oilseeds to Japan and to become acquainted with Japanese market preferences.


CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the estimated target date for beginning of construction of the young offenders penal institution at Springhill, N.S.?
2.	Is the estimated cost of construction of this institution $4,500,000, or has that estimated cost increased?


Mr. Deschaieleis:: 1. Late summer of 1964.
2. Initial estimated cost of $4,500,000 was based on preliminary plans and when site conditions were unknown. It is now possible to estimate that the cost of construction will be close to $7 million.
13, 1964	3219
Questions


AWARDS UNDER FITNESS ACT
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many postgraduate scholarships and fellowships were made available to Canadians under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act and what was the total cost of the awards?
2.	How many postgraduate scholarships and fellowships were made available, to residents of Nova Scotia under the abovementioned act and what was the total cost of the awards?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Canada-
	Number	Amount
1962-63	39	$ 71,4481963-64	80	135,9011964-65	108	175,000 (approx.)2. Nova	Scotia-	Number	Amount1962-63	1	$4,5581963-64	4	7,5001964-65	1	2,000


ARDA PROJECTS, CUMBERLAND CONSTITUENCY, N.S.
Mr. Coaies: 1.	How many projects have been proposed for the constituency of Cumberland under ARDA and what is the nature of the proposals?
2.	How many of the proposed projects have been approved by the federal government?
3.	What is the estimated cost of each project and what is the federal government's share of the proposed expenditure?
Answer: 1. One. Establishing and maintaining a community pasture known as Minudie community pasture, five miles west of Amherst in Cumberland county.
2.	One.
3.	Total shareable cost, $30,000; federal share, $15,000.


BRIDGE OR TUNNEL STUDY, VANCOUVER AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 969[DOT]-Mr. Pritlie:
Has the Department of Transport or any agency of the federal government requested the department of highways of British Columbia to share in the cost of a study concerning the advisability of building a new bridge or tunnel to connect the city of Vancouver and Sea island, the site of the Vancouver international airport and, if so, who has been commissioned to carry out the study and when is a report expected?
John Whitney Pickersgill: At the request of the department of highways of British Columbia the Department of Transport has agreed to share in the cost of a study of traffic and technical problems involved, and have commissioned the firm of Phillips Barrett and partners to undertake this study and a report is expected in about six months time.


RIVER POLLUTION FOLLOWING MACTAQUAC DAM CONSTRUCTION
Mr. MacRae: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare been requested to report on the result

Questions
of the effects of possible pollution on public health in the lower Saint John river valley following the building of the Mactaquac dam?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No. However in 1960,
through the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare technical assistance was provided to the New Brunswick water authority in carrying out a water evaluation survey of the Saint John river basin. Results of the investigation were covered in Survey Report-Effects of Pollution, Saint John River, 1960. In 1963 further assistance was provided in a study of the lower Kennebecasis river, lower Saint John river and Saint John harbour. A report on this latter study is now under preparation.


COST OF TRAINING R.C.A.F. PILOT
Mr. Knowles: What was the approximate cost of training a pilot for the Royal Canadian Air Force in each of the following years (a) 1943 (b) 1953 (c) 1963?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: (a) $32,000; (b) $54,000; (c) $85,000. These costs include aircraft operating costs, military personnel and station support costs.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many loans were granted by the Farm Credit Corporation in each of the provinces during the past year?
2.	How many of these loans in each of the provinces were in the following categories: less than $10,000; between $10,000 and $15,000; between $15,000 and $20,000; and between $20,000 and $27,000?


Harry William Hays: 1. The Farm Credit Corporation advises that the number of loan approvals in each of the provinces for the fiscal year 1963-64 were as follows: British Columbia 355; Alberta 2,043; Saskatchewan 2,332; Manitoba 625; Ontario 1,796; Quebec 1,221; New Brunswick 83; Nova Scotia 74; Prince Edward Island 155; Newfoundland 5.-Total 8,689.
2.

Less	but less	but less	$20,000than	than	than	to$10,000	$15,000	$20,000	$27,500B.C.	58	81	111	105Alberta	576	693	487	287Sask.	1,115	686	359	172Manitoba	258	193	123	51Ontario	463	555	412	366Quebec	486	373	225	137N.B.	43	20	10	10N.S.	37	14	8	15P.E.I.	113	25	12	5Nfld.	1	2	-	2National	3,150	2,642	1,747	1,150


FARMERS IN CANADA
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many farmers are there in Canada?
2.	How many farmers are there in the following categories: 0 to 100 acres; 100 to 200 acres; 200 to 300 acres; 300 to 400 acres; 400 to 500 acres; 500 to 600 acres; 600 to 700 acres; 700 to 800 acres; 800 to 900 acres; 900 to 1,000 acres; 1,000 to 1,500 acres; and over 1,500 acres?
3.	What is the average capitalization of each of the above categories?
Answer: 1. The census of agriculture provides information on the number of farms. In the 1961 census, a farm was defined as an agricultural holding of one acre or more with sales of agricultural products during the past 12 months of $50 or more. The number of farms in Canada on June 1, 1961 was 480,903. A considerable number of these farms are occupied by persons employed principally in occupations other than agriculture.
2. Number of farms by selected size groups, Canada, 1961-
Size group	Number of farms
Under 70	acres	67,18370-239	acres	204,159240-399	acres	82,626400-559	acres	44,764560-759	acres	31,860760-1,119	acres	27,6421,120-1,599	acres	13,0911,600 acres	and over	9,578
3. Average capital value of farms classified by size group, Canada, 1961-
Size group		Average capital value per farm
Under 70	acres	$ 17,05270-239	acres	20,936240-399	acres	24,627400-559	acres	30,037560-759	acres	37,104760-1,119	acres	46,7581,120-1,599	acres	61,9111,600 acres	and over	113,468


AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM GRANTS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many agricultural museum grants were made in 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	To what organizations were they made in each of the years 1961, 1962 and 1963?
3.	What was the name of the museum, and the amount each of the agricultural museums received in the years 1961, 1962 and 1963?


Harry William Hays: 1. One each in 1961, 1962 and 1963.
2. and 3. The western development museum, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, received $6,000 in each of the three years, 1961, 1962 and 1963.


INVITATIONS TO AGRICULTURE MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Agriculture been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Harry William Hays: No.


INVITATIONS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Mr. Teillel:: No.


INVITATIONS TO FISHERIES MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Fisheries been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?
Answer: No.


INVITATIONS TO DEFENCE MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of National Defence been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


INVITATIONS TO ASSOCIATE DEFENCE MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Associate Minister of National Defence been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Mr. Cardin:: No.


INVITATIONS TO ACTING REVENUE MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Acting Minister of National Revenue been invited to attend any function or visit any place In the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and.
Questions
if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No.


INCOME TAX APPEALS, ROUYN AREA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,025*-Mr. Laprise:
1.	How many appeals did the income tax appeal board receive from taxpayers living in the area served by the Rouyn income tax office during 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	In how many cases did the appellant succeed?
3.	How many of these appeals were made as a result of the appellants' charitable donation receipts having been partly or wholly rejected?
4.	In what proportion of these cases did the board rule in favour of the taxpayer?
George James McIlraith: 1. 1960, nil; 1961, nil; 1962, nil; 1963, four; 1964, one.
2.	None of the cases appealed have so far been heard by the tax appeal board.
3.	One.
4.	See answer to 2 above.


*LAND FOR C.B.C. BUILDING, MONTREAL
Mr. Valade: 1.	On what date will the city of Montreal hand over the land needed for the construction of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation buildings in the eastern part of Montreal?
2.	When is the construction of these buildings supposed to start?
3.	Have there been any changes in that respect and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	Will the land be used for parking purposes during the 1967 world exhibition?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises me as follows:
1.	Under the agreement entered into by the city of Montreal and the C.B.C., the land must be handed over to the corporation on October 1, 1964, at the latest.
2.	The construction of these buildings is expected to start in the fall of 1965.
3.	No.
4.	The part of the land not used for the C.B.C. buildings will be available for parking purposes during the 1967 world fair and even as early as 1964.


*PLANS FOR C.B.C. BUILDING, MONTREAL
Mr. Valade: 1.	Have the final plans for the construction of the buildings of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the eastern part of Montreal been accepted and, if so (a) what is the approximate cost of the work (b) which architects drew up the plans?
2.	What was the procedure followed in choosing the architects?
3.	What were the fees paid or to be paid?

Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	No.
2.	C.B.C. architects are preparing the plans.
3.	None.


RETURN OF CITIZENSHIP FEE TO MRS. JOSEPH BUCKIE
Mr. Howard: With respect to the answer given on May 4 to starred question No. 721, are any steps being taken to return the $1 fee paid by Mrs. Joseph Buckie under section 10 (3) of the Canadian Citizenship Act and, if so, what are those plans?


Hubert Badanai: No.


* CLOSING OF R.C.E.M.E. WORKSHOP, REGINA
Mr. Pascoe: Following the government's decision to close the R.C.E.M.E. workshop in Regina, what policy has been established for displaced civilian personnel in regard to (a) re-employment elsewhere (b) possible benefits from the retirement fund into which the workers have contributed (c) severance pay for classified civil servants and for hourly paid workers?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: (a) Before separation every effort is made to place those affected in vacancies which are available in the immediate area or in other areas. The services of the civil service commission and the national employment service are used in an attempt to obtain alternative employment for the employees. If the employees are placed on lay-off the national employment service and the civil service commission make every attempt to place them in a suitable position of the same class or an equivalent class with the same maximum salary. The department may also pay up to $500 removal assistance if a suitable position is located outside the designated area of lay-off and the transfer meets departmental regulations.
(b)	Employees on lay-off who are aged 50 or over and who are contributors to the public service superannuation account with five or more years of pensionable service are eligible to apply for an actuarial equivalent of the deferred annuity to which they would ordinarily be entitled at age 60. Employees aged 60 or over are entitled to an immediate annuity payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
(c)	Classified civil servants on lay-off are entitled to retiring leave or gratuity equivalent to one week of salary or leave for each complete year of service. Prevailing rate employees have no entitlement to retiring leave or gratuity.


LOBSTER TRAP LOSSES, NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT
Mr. Coates: Has the Minister of Fisheries been informed of the substantial lobster trap losses in the Northumberland strait as a result of ice conditions and, if so, what action has his department taken to assist in this regard?
Answer: Yes. However, investigation by field officers revealed damage was not as serious as at first believed.


* SAVINGS UNDER DAIRY POLICY
Mr. Ricard: Has the dairy policy established by the government in April, 1963 had the effect expected of it, namely, a saving of $6 million?


Bruce Silas Beer: The dairy policy established by the government in April, 1963, has had the following results:
(a)	Has increased producer returns. The dominion bureau of statistics reports that the farm cash income from dairy products for 1963 showed an increase of $15,301,000 over 1962.
(b)	This policy brought consumption and production essentially into balance; thus during the support year butter production in Canada totalled 352 million pounds while disappearance totalled 357 million pounds.
(c)	This policy resulted in estimated government expenditures, other than those associated with the accumulated surplus, of $45 million compared with $56.8 million for 1962-63.
y" * FRENCH AND ENGLISH LESSONS FOR CIVIL SERVANTS


Mr. Ricard: As of April 16, 1964 (a) how many French speaking civil servants were taking English lessons, and (b) how many English speaking civil servants were taking French lessons; the lessons in both cases being those given under government auspices in an effort to increase civil servants' knowledge of the two languages?


George James McIlraith: As of April 16, 1964, there were 39 French speaking civil servants attending English language courses sponsored by various government departments, and 421 English speaking civil servants attending French language courses. These courses are being expanded to meet the increasing requirements of the service.


CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT USED IN SEAL FISHERY
Mr. Tucker: Has the government given any consideration to the establishment of a more rigid system of control on the operators of aircraft, (fixed and rotating wing) which participate in the prosecuting of the seal fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence and off the coast of Newfoundland?

Answer: The whole matter of sealing operations, including the use of aircraft, is presently under serious consideration and it is expected that before the opening of the 1965 sealing season more restrictive regulations will be in effect.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Peters: 1.	Under the ARDA program, what projects were approved, by provinces, in 1963 and in the first three months of 1964?
2.	What was the cost of each project approved by ARDA, and the details of the projects approved?
3.	What projects have been rejected in the same period, and what was the reason the proposed plans were rejected by ARDA?
Return tabled.
13, 1964	3223
Lack of Bilingual Committee Reporters



DISALLOWANCE OF CHARITABLE DONATION RECEIPTS, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Langlois:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams received by the Minister of National Revenue or his employees concerning charitable donation receipts disallowed during 1963 in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 120-Mr. Valade:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government, the authorities of the city of Montreal, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the administrative authorities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since April 1, 1963, concerning the construction of the buildings of that corporation in the eastern part of the city of Montreal.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What official or officials of the C.B.C. invited
Marcel Chaput, the author of "Why I am a Separatist" to participate in each of the following French network radio and television programs, namely (a) Radio network (French): June 8, 1961 "Place Publique"; November 17, 1961 "Rondpoint"; December 26, 1961 "Rondpoint"; December 29, 1961 "Rondpoint"; December 7, 1961 "Partage"; February 15,	1962 "Place Publique"; February 28,
1962 "Metro-Magazine"; January 17, 1962 "Rondpoint"; August 6, 1962 "Metro-Magazine"; September 25, 1962 "Metro-Magazine"; December 18, 1962 "Partage du matin"; July 23, 1963 "Partage du matin"; August 29, 1963 "Partage du matin" (b) television network (French); November 15, 1960 "Carrefour"; November 20, 1961 "Carrefour"; December 9, 1962 "Tribune Libre"; March 18, 1963 "Aujourd'hui"; April 23, 1963 "Aujourd'hui"; May 5, 1963 "Tribune Libre"; August 13, 1963 "Aujourd'hui"; August 23, 1963 "Conference de Presse"; January 18, 1964 "Champ Libre"; January 22, 1964 "Aujourd'hui"?
2.	What invitations, if any, were extended by C.B.C. to the said Marcel Chaput to present his views to the radio network (English) and the television network (English), by whom and when?
3.	Of the 30 C.B.C. radio and television programs produced in 1963 designed to foster and strengthen national unity (see question 456), were only the following available to French listeners, namely: (a) "Citizen Forum"-Confederation a Century Later-Does it Still Work (b) a special-The John-son-Lesage Debate and, if so, for what reasons?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Hon. J. Watson MacNaughi (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, motion for the production of papers No. 119 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservation that information relating to the affairs of individual taxpayers cannot be disclosed.
I understand that motion for the production of papers No. 120 is to be withdrawn.



LACK OF BILINGUAL COMMITTEE REPORTERS


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieife-L'Assompiion-Monicaim):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to paragraph (1) of standing order 26, I move the adjournment of the house to discuss an urgent and extremely important matter for the Canadian people.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a committee of this house appointed to study a matter referred by the house itself met twice without being able to examine the matter. Twice, the committee on privileges and elections had to adjourn on account of a serious deficiency in the administration of this committee. I refer to the lack of French reporters. I do not want, in any way, to hold responsible for this lack of reporters the administration of committees whose staff is qualified and devoted, but I believe that the blame falls on the government which did not assume its responsibilities in due time.
If we are confronted today with a real bilingualism crisis in a committee of the house-and not the least, since the committee on privileges and elections is the first designated in the first paragraph of standing order 65-if we are confronted with such a crisis, I say that, in my opinion, it is due to the carelessness and inefficiency of this government which refused or neglected to find French reporters.
Mr. Speaker, it is not for you or me to go out into the street and ask passers-by if they are qualified as French official reporters; however, I think-and the house undoubtedly
3224	HOUSE OF
Lack of Bilingual Committee Reporters feels the same way-that someone in the administration branch of our parliament and our government must be responsible for recruiting personnel needed by the house and its services.
That situation is not new, however. Last year that same committee on privileges and elections had to face a similar situation when the French official reporters were taken away while a serious matter was being discussed. And all the committees, last year as well as this year, are now without the services of French official reporters.
However, Mr. Speaker, the government approved recently the establishment of a commission which, by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, conducts an inquiry on bilingualism across the country, while parliament itself is unable to establish bilingualism in its own house.


Mr. Knowles:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, should it not be decided whether the motion is to be put before the hon. member speaks to it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was giving reasons why the house should be adjourned under standing order 26. I understand he was just concluding his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a precedent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Parliament itself is unable to establish bilingualism in its own house.
The committees of the house are part and parcel of the house and they are entitled to the same treatment as the house. In my opinion, bilingualism has the same rights during the meetings of committees as during the sittings of the house.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), that this important matter be referred immediately to parliament and that the house adjourn its normal business to consider at once the problem of bilingualism in the committees, especially the lack of official French reporters.
I learned from the chairman of the committee that he has secured the services of a reporter, on a temporary basis, but I do not think that this will improve the present situation since three committees are sitting at the present time and two standing committees of the house, which should have bilingual reporters, are without them.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that I have been distinctly alluded to in the comments of the hon. member may I say, as chairman of the committee, that if there is fault I accept the fault. I feel it is part of my responsibility as chairman, and if there has been a fault I accept it willingly.


Mr. Churchill:: That does not cure it.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: On the
hon. member's motion, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the so-called embryo leader of the French Canadian wing of the Conservative party, both voted against a motion to adjourn that committee until such time as French reporters could be found.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the reason we voted against the motion was that the motion was just a manoeuvre to use the scarcity of reporters in the French language to save the Liberal organizer from a very embarrassing position.


Mr. Caouetie:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for debate until such time as the Chair either accepts or rejects the motion. May I point out that we are not dealing with the internal problems of the committee. We are dealing with a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26.
Now, if 1 can have a little attention I will do my best to reach a decision on this motion. One of the criteria under standing order 26 is the urgency of debate. The matter has to be so important and the urgency has to be so great that the ordinary business of the house should be set aside in order to debate it.
I am well aware of what took place in the committee, though I would point out it was not brought to my attention until an hour after the committee had started to sit. I do think the Chair and the staff of the house are entitled to reasonable notice, and we could perhaps avoid similar incidents in the future.
In any event, the difficulty of getting qualified reporters is great, and certainly is well known to all members of the house. Steps have immediately been taken as of yesterday to secure two qualified reporters for the meeting of the said committee this afternoon. One has been graciously furnished by the other place, and the other has been secured by the Chair for this particular committee. But we recognize, of course, that this is a long term problem and steps are being taken, and have

been taken, to ensure that if any slip has taken place in the past it will be attended to immediately and will be corrected in the future. At the same time this whole problem has been referred to the committee on procedure and organization.
May I point out that during the last three years, with the increase in the number of parties in the house, with the tremendous increase in the use of French-and I am very glad to see it-in the House of Commons and in the committees, we are in the midst of changing conditions requiring different methods of treatment.
I am very much indebted to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for bringing this to the attention of the Chair even though the Chair is well aware of the problem, and I can assure the house that steps have been taken as of yesterday, and will be taken immediately, to correct what obviously is a flaw in our general committee set-up.
I do not think that we should take any more time of the house to debate this matter and in the circumstances, although I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the attention of the house, nevertheless I do not think the ordinary business of the house should be set aside at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question to ask. Is it your intention to submit this very important problem to the Secretary of State, who is responsible for this situation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is in error, which happens to him pretty often, because the employment of parliamentary reporters is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State but rather of the House of Commons.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, following the comment just made by the Secretary of State, I wish to remind him that this matter and this responsibility were assumed by his predecessor, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
I think Your Honour was quite right in pointing out that he was not given much time to remedy the situation which occurred yesterday in the committee on privileges and elections. On the other hand, Your Honour will recall that, on October 8 of last year, the then secretary of state, who is now the Minister of Transport, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency on that very matter, that is if
13. 1964	3225
Lack of Bilingual Committee Reporters bilingual reporters were to be assigned to the committees of the house, made the following statement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am about to call orders of the day. Perhaps the hon. member could ask a question on the same subject, if it is pressing and urgent, at that time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Your Honour, I believe it would facilitate and expedite the business of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that the motion has not been accepted and we have not anything before the house except the regular, ordinary business; so I am going to call orders of the day.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, with the greatest respect to the Chair, that you came to the conclusion that the motion was out of order without giving any hon. members of this house a chance to discuss whether or not this was an urgent matter. Surely some hon. members would have liked to have set forth an argument to assist Your Honour in coming to the conclusion at which you did arrive this afternoon. It would seem that we were closed off in debate.


Mr. Valade:: Grit arrogance again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Acting on the very good suggestion of my learned friend, may I read standing order 26, subparagraph 1:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance must be asked after starred questions on Wednesdays and on other days after the ordinary daily routine of business, standing order 15(2), has been concluded.
(2)	The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
(3)	He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than 20 members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
In reply to the hon. member for Bow River, several hon. members did have the opportunity to speak. I did not notice the hon. member take that opportunity when others were speaking. But in any event the
3226	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Lack of Bilingual Committee Reporters decision has been rendered, and I do not think we are justified in spending more time on the matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Secretary of State rose and stated that this was no concern of his. I think we should have the right-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -to answer that particular assertion; and if Your Honour had allowed me the time, I had just about finished my statement.


An hon. Member:: You are out of order, anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must take its own responsibility, and the Chair has rendered a decision, good, bad or indifferent. The Chair is not disposed to change that decision. What the Secretary of State says is his responsibility, but in so far as the Chair is concerned, the matter is terminated. Orders of the day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that to enter into a constant debate is against our standing orders and against the custom and practice of the house. I am calling for the last time, if I can put it that way, orders of the day.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Your Honour has just mentioned that several hon. members have had the opportunity to speak on this matter. I was trying to say a few words before you gave your decision but we did not have the opportunity to express even briefly our opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think this demonstrates the fact that when a ruling has been given it should be accepted by the house; or if not accepted, it should be put to a vote. I do not see that anything is to be gained at this time by continuing this discussion. The point of the necessity for more French speaking reporters has been clearly made. The reply has been to the effect that every endeavour will be made to secure extra reporters, and there I think the matter should rest. Orders of the day.


Mr. Graffley:: We have been told this for years, and nothing has been done about it.


An hon. Member:: What about the six years you were in office?


William Heward Grafftey: It does not make any difference; it is not a party question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement made yesterday in Paris to the NATO ministerial meeting by the Secretary of State for External Affairs means or is intended to signify or imply that Canada is about to recognize the government of communist China. Would the Prime Minister say whether the interpretation that has been given to the remarks of the minister is in accordance with the facts?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the statement was made yesterday at The Hague at a confidential session of the NATO council.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How can it be confidential?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have seen press reports of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is supposed to have said, and they vary. I have also had the benefit of a report from The Hague as to what he said. I can assure my right hon. friend that in his statement in regard to the policy of this government with reference to China, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not go beyond what was stated in this house in answer to a question on October 2, 1963, what he said in the house on November 28, 1963, and what he said in reply to two questions asked and answered on March 2 and March 23, 1964.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, for a completely secret meeting the report certainly was complete, even to the extent of quotation marks. I ask the Prime Minister whether this was just a case of kite flying, or does it represent a change of viewpoint on the part of the government of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, it does not represent a change of viewpoint.


John George Diefenbaker: So it is kite flying.


CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the NATO conference which is now going on at The Hague. I wonder if the

right hon. gentleman could tell us whether the question of setting up a multilateral force is on the agenda and if he can give the house some assurance that Canada will make no commitment with regard to such a force without consulting parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our policy with regard to this matter is well known, and it will not be changed as the result of any discussions at the current NATO council meeting.


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-DEPORTATION OF HOLDER OF CANADIAN PASSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux) put the following question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration:
Is the minister aware that a person holding a Canadian passport has been deported from the Dominican Republic and, if so, what does his department intend to do in that respect?
As this question primarily concerns the Department of External Affairs, as acting minister of that department I take the liberty of providing an answer.
When the report published in the Globe and Mail of May 11 came to the attention of the Department of External Affairs, telegrams were sent to the Canadian ambassadors in Lisbon and Santo Domingo, asking them to investigate. When the department receives a report on this investigation I shall be pleased to give a more detailed answer to the question of the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency.



HOLLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked if I had any information about the situation regarding a Canadian lady who was refused admittance to the Netherlands.
I am informed that the NATO authorities had nothing whatever to do with Mrs. Mac-pherson being denied entry to the Netherlands. The right of visa and entry, of course, lies completely within the jurisdiction of the country being visited. On this occasion the government of the Netherlands refused admission because it was ascertained by them that Mrs. Macpherson and other ladies were
Inquiries of the Ministry entering the Netherlands to take part in a political demonstration, which, in the view of the Netherlands government might lead to a breach of the peace during the NATO council meetings.
When our embassy in The Hague heard about this they intervened on behalf of Mrs. Macpherson and Mrs. Shapiro, another Canadian lady, and the two ladies know about the intervention in question. However, since that time the government of the Netherlands has changed its decision on this matter and these two ladies and the other ladies have been admitted to the Netherlands by that government.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement with reference to the government's assistance to the victims of the tidal wave disaster in the Alberni valley. Will the Prime Minister tell us what is now the estimated total of the damage, and what percentage of this the federal government is prepared to put up as compensation to the victims?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the details of the damage, but I hope to be able to make a statement tomorrow as to the amount that will be made available by the federal government to the sufferers in this disaster.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the government has received the sum total of the damage? Has the federal government yet decided what percentage of the agreed amount they will be prepared to meet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will make a statement tomorrow which will clear this matter up.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention, in addition to prorating the expenditures between the federal and provincial governments, of his government to give assistance by way of a contribution to the emergency fund? That is a matter aside from the pressing matter which is being discussed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government, as I said yesterday, to make a contribution to the emergency fund, and I will be able to announce the amount tomorrow.
3228	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN PROVINCIAL STUDY OF INDEPENDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question, which might perhaps seem a bit funny but which is really very serious under the circumstances.
Does the Canadian government propose to express its views before the parliamentary committee of the Quebec legislature, the creation of which was announced in the newspapers yesterday and today and which is going to make a comprehensive study of the repercussions of Quebec's independence?


Mr. Speaker:: Important though the question is, I think it is one for the order paper.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question in the same subject area as that raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve which you ruled out of order; and of course you have the right to pass judgment on my question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering taking any immediate public position with regard to the official endeavour of the Quebec legislature in studying factors relating to the separation of Quebec from Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the same conditions apply. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would ask to have it transferred for debate.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman been in communication with Premier Lesage of Quebec since a member of the latter's government officially rejected the concept of co-operative federalism on behalf of the government of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is important and it is very interesting, but I do not see what urgency attaches to it. Under our standing orders, as the hon. member well knows, a question may be asked only in respect of a matter of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer. Consequently, perhaps the hon. member would put his question on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a special and urgent question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any information of immediate interest and concern to the members of this house with respect to the participation by the Canadian government in the search for international monetary liquidity, stability and agility?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think in reply to a question from my hon. friend the other day I stated that Canada has been participating in the studies that have been conducted by the so-called group of ten are under the auspices of the international monetary fund. I said in answer to a question that Mr. Plumptre, the assistant deputy minister of finance, had been representing Canada. I hope to attend a meeting that will be considering this matter in June. At the annual meeting of the international monetary fund and the world bank in Tokyo in September -I think the dates are from the 7th to the Uth-I hope Canada will be represented by myself, by the governor of the Bank of Canada and by Mr. Plumptre.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING REFUNDS OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Can the hon. gentleman now tell the house when his department intends to issue a statement regarding simplified procedures in applying for refund of the 8 per cent tax on building materials used in the construction of educational institutions? I should like to ask him, further, whether the refund will now apply also to churches.


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


James Ernest Pascoe: With all deference, when I last asked this question the minister promised to give an answer soon.


George James McIlraith: I am happy to be able to relieve the anxiety of the hon. member by telling him that the regulations were amended yesterday and the instructions for obtaining refunds under the new formula in connection with educational institutions are being distributed today. As to the second part of the question, I do not believe it is possible, though

I shall have to check my answer, for the Minister of National Revenue to make the change in the law which would be required; it is covered by statute.


James Ernest Pascoe: Where can we obtain copies of this simplified form?


George James McIlraith: I would be happy to provide one to the hon. member and to any other hon. members who may wish to have them.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. With regard to the new sale of wheat to communist China under the second long term agreement, could the minister tell us whether it is correct that Canada will receive, each year, $7 million worth of Chinese textiles?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the new sale of wheat to China which I announced the other day is within the framework of the long term agreement which I announced in the house on August 2, 1963. Under that agreement there are no Canadian undertakings about the volume of Chinese textile sales to Canada. It was recognized, and I stated at that time, that it is in our mutual interest to provide the Chinese state trading corporation with an opportunity to maintain and develop their market in Canada for various items, subject to appropriate safeguards to avoid market disruption. In this connection the Chinese state trading corporation-not the Canadian government but the Chinese state trading corporation-have undertaken to limit their exports of sensitive items, including textiles to Canada to a total limit of $7 million annually.



PROBABLE CONTINUATION OF SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by deputy chairman Mikoyan of the Soviet union to a group of Canadian businessmen that sales of wheat to Russia would likely continue for many years. If so, have the Russians indicated that the flour content of such sales would be maintained?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing this interesting information to my attention. I have not as yet received any indication such as has been given to the businessmen of Canada that the Russians are about to buy more wheat. I hope it is true, and I hope they buy more flour.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his department taken or is it taking any immediate action to check on the accuracy of the reported statement of Mikoyan to see what enlarged scope there may be for greater sales of Canadian wheat in the interests of the wheat growers of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, or more exactly on April 17 last, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked how many flag designs had been submitted to this government since it came to power. I shall answer him that we received 624 designs from April 22, 1963 to April 24, 1964.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a supplementary question. Could he tell the house whether it is true that the choice of two flags was discussed and decided in the Liberal caucus today?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the committee on external affairs has been sitting for almost a month and a half in order to study the Columbia river treaty, and since the proceedings of several sittings have already been published in English, would the Secretary of State tell us why we do not receive those documents in French?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said on several occasions, the work of the bureau for translations has increased considerably, especially in the last few months. We are now making all possible effort to get more staff, and I am sure that the present staff is doing all it can to supply translations as soon as possible.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Can he tell us whether the salary scale offered by the federal government in the field of bilingual reporters, translators and interpreters can be the cause of the delay in the efforts of his department to solve this problem? Can he also tell us whether the salaries offered by the federal government are higher than those offered by private industry?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is a question which the Secretary of State could hardly be expected to reply to in detail on short notice. As the hon. member well knows, all these salaries are under careful consideration at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question be discussed at ten o'clock, after the adjournment of the business of the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell the house whether he will place all the facilities of his department at the disposal of Mr. Speaker in order to ensure the presence of French and English reporters at the meetings of the committees of the house, as promised by his predecessor on October 8 last?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat my statement of a few minutes ago, which in no way contradicts what my predecessor said on October 8 last. I wish to repeat that the employment of reporters is not a responsibility of the Secretary of State but of the House of Commons. However, I am convinced that if the House of Commons requests the services of the Secretary of State, we shall be happy to co-operate to the fullest possible extent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In order to help clear up the situation, and in the interest of the House of Commons, would the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to invite the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to conduct an
inquiry here in parliament, first of all, so that we may have integral bilingualism?


An hon. Member:: A silly question.


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


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Does he intend to treat our interpreters more humanely, in order at least to keep those we have now, by providing them with an air conditioning system in their booths?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is based on a report in the paper that President Claude Edwards of the civil service federation had written to the Prime Minister asking that benefits similar to those announced for members of the armed forces be provided for civilian employees of the Department of National Defence who are prematurely retired because of the reorganization in that department. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has received the communication, if he has answered it, and whether he could indicate the nature of his reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received the communication and I am in process of preparing a reply to it.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Would the minister give consideration to an experiment to raise water levels in lake Huron by sinking two obsolete lake freighters on either side of the channel leading to the St. Clair river?


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly this question is important but not necessarily extremely urgent.

Inquiries of the Ministry



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. He is well aware of the serious situation in northwestern Quebec and more particularly in the field of justice.
The superior court of that region has had cases pending for over five years. Now we hear rumours to the effect that the Minister of Justice will appoint a third superior court judge. Does the minister intend to make such an appointment as soon as possible so that the cases can be heard in our region?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have received certain representations from the attorney general of the province of Quebec, not necessarily concerning northwestern Quebec as a particular region, but rather concerning the addition to the number of judges of the superior court. It gives me pleasure to inform my hon. friend that I have the matter under consideration. [Text]



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: wonder whether the Prime Minister can give us the latest news about legislation respecting periodical publications after today's government caucus.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not on orders of the day.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Since he is not in the house at the present time, I hope that one of his colleagues will answer on his behalf.
Under the ARDA program, natural resources, social and economic conditions in that part of the province of Quebec including the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen islands will be the subject of a comprehensive study, does the term "lower St. Lawrence" include Charlevoix county?


Bruce Silas Beer: I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. I will bring it to the attention of the minister, and I am sure a reply will be forthcoming.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from an answer given earlier by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in respect of the disaster at Port Alberni.
On June 30, 1963 a hurricane devastated part of Abitibi West, in the province of Quebec. Did the Prime Minister decide at that time to contribute to the disaster fund established to help victims of that region of the province of Quebec, as it is being done for Port Alberni, according to the answer he gave a moment ago to the Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am being asked about a fund covering a disaster which occurred nearly a year ago and I am unable, of course, to reply offhand.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: On May 11, in reply to a question, the Prime Minister undertook to look into a suggestion that the income tax on the special benefits paid to retiring personnel of the armed forces be spread over a period of three or four years. The suggestion was perhaps made because of a belief that the benefits would be treated for income tax purposes as ordinary income, or perhaps in the mistaken belief that the serviceman would be thereby raised to a higher income bracket for tax purposes.
Such is not the case. The special benefit to a member of the Canadian armed forces is treated as if it were a gratuity payable under the pay and allowance regulations. It is not treated as normal income, and does not place him in a higher tax bracket. The actual tax paid on this benefit is applied to only 85 per cent of the amount of the benefit, and is calculated on the basis of the tax payable on the serviceman's normal income. This method

Judges Act
of computing income tax on lump sum payments to servicemen has been in effect for many years.
To give an example, an army captain with 16 years service, married, with two children, would be entitled to a maximum special benefit of $6,350. The income tax payable on the special benefit would be $582.93, and the lump sum paid to him would be the difference, or $5,767.07. If the special benefit had been simply added to his annual income the income tax on his special benefit would be not $582.93 but $1,206.50. It will be apparent, therefore, that the method of computing income tax on these lump sum payments results in a much lower tax than that which would apply if the benefit were merely added to income for tax purposes.



JUDGES ACT AND EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


Guy Favreau: the second reading of Bill No. C-96, to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, there is one point on which I should like a brief explanation. I did not want to intervene last night. Can the minister tell me whether in the future there is to be no position of commissioner of divorce in the other place? When the present incumbent retires or if he unfortunately ceases to hold office prior to the expiration of the 10 year appointment I take it that nominations from then on will be from the exchequer court bench at the instance of the Speaker of the Senate, but I should like to know what control the president of the exchequer court will have.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is the government's intention that once a member of the exchequer court has been appointed in addition to the present members, and once one out of the six puisne judges has been designated by the Speaker of the Senate to fulfil the duties of the commissioner, then from that time there will not be a commissioner functioning at the same time as the judge exercising these functions. I will admit that we thought about the question of the intervention of the chief justice. The reason why the bill was drafted in this way is that this person will act as an officer of the Senate

and for that reason we believe it is essential that the Senate, through its Speaker, have full control over the choice of the person who will act in lieu of the commissioner; but it is assumed and has always been taken for granted that this will be done in conjunction with the president of the exchequer court.
My learned friend will agree that the difficulties have been considerable in drafting this very special type of legislation and this is the reason why we have expressed it that way. Quite frankly, I must say that the reason why the designation is left to the Speaker of the Senate is precisely to retain the quality of the person acting as an officer or in lieu of one of the officers of the houses of parliament, and to make it clear that he will not thereby be discharging any function as a judge of the exchequer court as such.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a word to say with regard to this bill. After we passed the resolution last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) said, as found on page 3206 of Hansard, that "although the bill has not been circulated they", referring to members of the house, "may take my word for it that it is verbatim" with one that was before the house last year, and he asked us to give unanimous consent to second reading then.
I objected and said that we would like to go on with the bill today, and at that point some member shouted "obstruction".
Far from there being any obstruction, the bill was not circulated last night and it was not circulated this morning. When I came into the house at 2.30 I looked on my file of bills to see if it had been placed there by the pages, but we only received it at 3.30. I would point out that far from there being any obstruction last night we were very properly performing our duty as an opposition in asking to see the printed document before the house passed it. When the Minister of Justice told us that the bill had not yet been circulated I suggest that he should have said that the bill had not yet been printed in sufficient numbers to be circulated.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been well understood. I never implied, because I did not know, that the bill had been or had not been printed, but one sure thing was that it had not been circulated. I must say that in my capacity as government leader in the house I am certainly not complaining about the conduct of the opposition or any of the parties. There was a good deal of cooperation yesterday, which I am sure will continue, because the mood is there; and I was quite pleased. I would ask my hon. .friend

to recall that I did not persist in my request as soon as he made the statement which he made last night.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We were very co-operative last night, but who was the undisclosed member who called out "obstruction" last night? Why does he not stand up and identify himself?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were on second reading of Bill No. C-90. We are told today that copies of the bill are available. Where are they? We do not have them.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, I sent a note to each leader of opposition parties in the house telling them that the bill had just arrived. I understand, and I am not blaming him, that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was absent for a few minutes, only at that time, and that is probably why he was not informed. It is fortunate that the bill is now available. This will enable us not only to discuss it immediately, but also to follow the order indicated last night.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the said judge will come under the jurisdiction of the Senate and the exchequer court, will there not be some confusion should there be a change of government? Will that judge fall under the sole jurisdiction of the exchequer court or will he remain always under the jurisdiction of the Senate?
It is said that the Speaker of the Senate changes when a new government comes into power; therefore, will there not be some confusion?


Guy Favreau: In so far as the political factor might be undesirable in the case of someone who would hold a public office of that kind-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister of Justice, but perhaps I should mention that we are debating second reading of this bill. It is not the usual practice as I understand it, to have an exchange of questions and answers such as we have had in the last few minutes. We can have speeches or contributions from hon. members which may be answered by the minister as a sort of summary which would close the debate. Detailed questions might be asked in the committee, if that is the wish of hon. members.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should not like the house to go into committee now if members of the house are of the opinion that
Judges Act
it is still necessary to ask some more questions. Perhaps we have not given you enough time to take your seat at the head of the table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and I think he realizes the problem raised in my question.
I believe we have here a rather delicate structure based entirely on a cordial agreement between the Speaker of the Senate and the president of the exchequer court. As a matter of fact, I do not see how the Speaker of the Senate could, given a mandate, appoint a puisne judge of the exchequer court without the consent of the president of the exchequer court. He cannot pick his judge at random. An agreement will have to be entered into between the president of the exchequer court and the Speaker of the Senate.
Now, on the other hand, could judges of the exchequer court refuse the invitation or the request of the Speaker of the Senate to act, for a rather long period, as Senate divorce commissioner?
I suggest to the minister and the government to consider that matter, for I feel that a more effective formula would be desirable in the future.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask once more the question which I asked before the house went into committee. Could the minister tell us whether there would not be any risk of a conflict of authority between the Speaker of the Senate and the chief justice of the exchequer court, when the duties of the judge who will act as divorce commissioner have to be determined?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, this question is quite appropriate. Of course, I say again that this situation is new and I admit it before the house. We thought about it very carefully before introducing the bill. The authority which has the power to establish the position of divorce commissioner, namely parliament, at the same time has the power to amend or modify the Exchequer Court Act and to enact specific provisions governing the rights and duties of the judges of the exchequer court, even outside their ordinary duties as members of the court.
There will be no conflict because we were very careful to put in the words which would make it quite clear that, once he has been

Judges Act
designated, that judge will in effect be on loan to the Senate. His duties will be exclusively that of an officer of the Senate, that is to say the same as those assigned to the officer of the Senate.
To make sure that the Senate would keep the required control, we felt that the Speaker of the Senate himself should designate the particular judges who would thereafter perform those duties. However, in reply, not to the objection, but to the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), which, in my opinion, is also well taken, I suggest it would be possible to reconcile those notions by adding, after the words "of the present section", that is the second line in subclause 6A, words such as, for instance: "after consultation with the president of the court".
I think that would solve the problem brought up by the hon. member for Edmonton West. If so, for my part, I am willing to recognize the merits of his question. It would at least be an improvement on the text in its present form and I would be ready to ask one of my colleagues to propose an amendment to that effect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There have been a number of discussions going on amongst hon. members as to what will be the next order of business after this bill relating to the Exchequer Court Act. I should like to ask the house leader if he is going to follow the order of business announced last night, or will there be substitutions made?


Guy Favreau: If I may be allowed to answer that intervention, which is appropriate, I may say the reason we did not start in the order which I had announced last night was that Bill No. C-96, which we are now discussing and Bill No. C-95, had not come back from the printers, to our great dismay and surprise. The Clerk of the house has been kind enough to advise us that Bill No. C-96 has come from the printers. I am pleased to advise there are a few copies of Bill No. C-95 here, and we are ready to call that bill after the bill under discussion has been passed, if that course is agreeable to hon. members.


Lucien Lamoureux: I understand there are about two dozen copies of the bill available.


Guy Favreau: There might not be enough copies, but our intention was to proceed with this one and subsequently to take the legislation providing for the extension of the authority of the banks to do business after July 1, first because it is printed, and second, because it is rather urgent and is of relatively

little difficulty from the point of view of discussion. We were then proposing to deal with the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are now on Bill C-96; following that we will take Bill C-95, and then the bill to extend the Bank Act. Is that the sequence?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last night we understood the third item today would be the Income Tax Act. What has happened to that?


Guy Favreau: I will continue being frank with hon. members, as I have always been. It seems there are quite a few hon. members who desired to debate the matter of the Income Tax Act, but who are not present in the chamber at the moment for reasons which I am told are acceptable, and I think it would be to the benefit of parliament if they be given the opportunity to be present so that we can have a fuller discussion. Therefore, we are going to call it as the first item tomorrow.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the minister's attention on the abnormal situation which results from the hasty introduction of bills as is the case here, even if the legislation is relatively short or contains but a few sections.
This question was considered by the house some time ago and it seems to me that there was sufficient time to have the bill printed and submitted to the house. In fact, I submit that all hon. members should have had a copy of Bill No. C-96 a long time ago. It seems to me that the procedure followed concerning legislation is rather strange.
Coming back to the bill itself, section 3 reads as follows:
A judge of the court designated by the Speaker of the Senate under this section and to whom the governor in council has granted for this purpose leave of absence-
Mr. Chairman, will the Speaker of the Senate, under this section, be able to change, day after day, the judge in question who would become commissioner for annulment of marriages in Canada?
Under the bill, there are six puisne judges in the exchequer court. So, if the Speaker of the Senate is the only one authorized to appoint a judge, will the appointee continue in office for a certain period, or could the Speaker of the Senate ask one of the five other judges of the exchequer court to look after cases of marriage annulment? To be more precise, will only one of the six exchequer

court judges be appointed to hear marriage annulment cases, or will the Speaker of the Senate, at his discretion, select one of the six exchequer court judges, after this bill is passed?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the purpose of the bill now under consideration is to ensure that the man entrusted with those duties will see his prestige recognized by the public by having the status of a judge of the exchequer court, so that he will be known to show objectivity, fairness and legal knowledge in the determination of factors preceding the reports to be submitted to the Senate.
In principle, it is clear that on termination of the leave granted by the governor in council, the Speaker of the Senate could appoint another judge. But if we were to include in the legislation the restriction I referred to earlier, which the hon. member for Villeneuve might also have in mind, namely the consultation with the chairman of the exchequer court prior to the appointment of the judge or commissioner involved, even the possibility of such a danger would be removed.
On the other hand, in practice, it is clear that the purpose is to enable the Speaker of the Senate to designate, among the judges of the exchequer court, one who would be sufficiently specialized in those matters to hear the cases submitted to him by the Senate. Surely, we can take it for granted that the Speaker of the Senate will act with all the required wisdom and retain, so to speak, the services of the same judge for all' the hearings.
As I pointed out yesterday, one of the advantages of the new legislation-once it is passed, it goes without saying-will be to make the present system much more flexible. Should the judge be ill or unable to act, for any reason whatever, because he is away on a trip or what have you, then, if many cases are outstanding, the Speaker of the Senate, with the assistance of the president of the exchequer court, will at least be able to designate another judge in the meantime, if the governor in council grants him leave,' as provided in the clause, to hear the said cases.
For my part, I think we can all assume that this discretion will be exercised in the same way that other authorities exercise their own, that is so as to achieve the very purpose of the legislation, which is to ensure a responsible, impartial and legally sound settlement of those cases which nevertheless remain under the jurisdiction, if you wish, of one of the two houses of parliament, in this case, the Senate.
Judges Act


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions which are closely related to what has just been said.
First of all, I want it clearly established whether all the judges of the exchequer court will be available or will be able to get that commissioner position and furthermore whether those judges of the exchequer court, in view of the new legislation, will also be able to sit on the divorce court. In addition, will their decisions be final, will they be necessarily imposed on the Senate, or will the Senate be able to reject the decisions suggested by judge having heard the case?
I would also like to get the assurance that the appointment of a new judge to the exchequer court will be made on the basis of his legal competence, even if his field of action is going to be rather restricted, and not on the basis of his political merits.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being disapproved, but in order to reassure the house, because I consider it my duty to do so, I must say that as far as I am concerned, in my capacity as Minister of Justice, it is my intention to recommend to the governor in council the appointment, as additional judge of the exchequer court, the present divorce commissioner who was praised so much yesterday in the house for his qualifications and experience.
Of course, without any prejudice to the decision to be taken by the Speaker of the Senate, it seems clear to me that he is the one the Speaker of the Senate will appoint as the first judge to try those cases.
But it is also clear that, for the reasons I gave earlier, other judges of the exchequer court will be eligible. But my own interpretation, which may be wrong, of the wording to be submitted, is that in the spirit of the act only one judge of the exchequer court will have to be appointed to that office at any time.
That is why we recommend the appointment of only one additional judge of the exchequer court. Because it will not reduce the work of that court and the same amount of work will have to be done.
I think that even if the Speaker of the Senate appointed more than one judge, first, if we admit the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the president of the court himself would see to it this did not happen; and second, the governor in council would not grant leave of absence to release one more judge.
Practically, I think we can all consider as an established fact that the judge to be appointed will have special qualifications in that field and that second, only one judge

Judges Act
will be appointed at any time to discharge the duties of commissioner.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of the remarks the Minister of Justice has made, and I would like to see the amendment he suggested a few moments ago, to assure consultation between the president of the exchequer court and the Speaker of the Senate. I may be setting up a straw man, but I think there may be difficulty in the event that there should not be agreement by the president of the exchequer court with regard to releasing a judge of that court. I have no qualms about the present president of the exchequer court, but our legislation must also take care of the future.
I refer to the English version of the bill, line 20, and wonder whether we might not have an amendment to provide that after the granting of leave of absence by the cabinet the judge shall exercise and perform these duties. In other words, if there is disagreement between the Speaker of the Senate and the president of the exchequer court, then the governor in council, or the cabinet, may step in and say, "Yes, this man shall perform these duties". You have to cut the Gordian knot somewhere. In this way there would be direction by the governor in council. I am putting this forward to the minister as a suggestion for his consideration. It may be that it goes too far and the minister would not like to have the governor in council step in. However, I think the minister realizes the potential problem that I have set up.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I understand perfectly the problem which has been raised. I personally would not agree that a person extraneous to the president of the exchequer court, under whose jurisdiction fall the puisne judges, should make this appointment. I do not think that after the Speaker of the Senate has intervened, another group, the governor in council, which is also extraneous to the exchequer court, should in a mandatory fashion have to appoint the commissioner.
My reason for not agreeing with this suggestion is that it would be bypassing, in my view, in too complete a fashion the authority of the president of the exchequer court, who is after all the chief justice of that court. This is why we have drafted the bill in this way, to make it possible, feasible and lawful for a member of the exchequer court to discharge functions which normally would be discharged by an officer of another body, namely the Senate. This is why I personally would much prefer, if my hon. friend from Edmonton West would agree, an amendment which would bring together the president of the exchequer court and the Speaker of the

Senate for the purpose of consultation. In view of the purpose of the bill and the reason one additional judge is being added to the exchequer court, I am quite sure that if we had the misfortune of losing the president of that court it would always be easy for the Speaker of the Senate and the president of the exchequer court to reach agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps I was being a little too pessimistic.


Guy Favreau: No, you were just being prudent.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, without being too insistent, I would like to revert to a question which I asked a moment ago.
The bar association to which I belong passed a resolution last year and reaffirmed its wish this year that the administration of justice be entrusted to persons whose qualifications take precedence over political considerations.
I wonder if this would not be a good idea- which I am now suggesting-that it be included in the bill itself-even if it is there only as a matter of form-for that appointment, as the minister said a while ago-of course, in the present case, the appointment will be made according to the qualifications, but we have to anticipate other appointments alS0-this is why I ask, as I said a moment ago, even if it is there only as a matter of form, whether it would not be a good idea to include in the bill that future appointments should be made according to qualifications and not for political considerations.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I understand the objectivity of my hon. friend in making his suggestion, but I think that it would probably be an indication-I say so frankly- of non-confidence in those who make appointments.
As for myself, I may say that as^ far as the present divorce commissioner is concerned-and I must say that I have recommended him-I do not know, and I hope that all the hon. members will take my word for it, what his political affiliations are.
Second, if you want to go by the recent appointment of the president of the exchequer court you will surely see that I am convinced that competence is the only thing that should be taken into account.
But I think-and that is why I would be against including this in the legislation-that it must be taken for granted, even if it is necessary to criticize him in the future for failing to do so, that the Minister of Justice in his recommendations to the Prime Minister about appointments to the posts of president or chief justice which the governor in council

will make, will always be convinced, as he must be, that the man he is recommending is competent.
I say that this is tacitly included in the act and that it is preferable not to write it, because this would create difficulties in the future by giving the impression that certain judges might be appointed for other reasons than for their competence.
There may have been such appointments in the past but I know-this is perhaps selfishness on my part because I want to consider my own responsibility only-that during my short term of office, there has been no appointment for other consideration, and I hope that nobody will be able to say later on that there has ever been.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to say anything on this matter, but I do think the point raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke is an excellent one. We have some very bad judges. I say that as a non-lawyer, therefore having no axe to grind one way or the other. But there are some very bad judges, and political appointments are not always the best. I think, however, it should be borne in mind that the minister is very well aware of the considerations and circumstances under which the commissioner was appointed. His choice has been a good one and I would say, as a third party, it has been a non-political one. There is, of course, something to consider when this appointment has eventually to be remade, and if the insinuation of some hon. members is correct and only one judge should be designated for a long period of time in this particular field, we will have to be overly cautious about how the appointment is made. I should not like to see the Prime Minister making this appointment on the basis of who was or who was not friendly in the last election; much more is at stake than that.
I think the minister is right in saying that there are other safeguards which have been written into the bill, not the least of which would be the rules that the Senate exercises in its committee, and the role which I see the Speaker of the Senate playing in this appointment. It is not likely that all the exchequer court judges would be incompetent, although some might be. When the chief of the exchequer court makes his choice and the request is made by the Senate for a specific officer, then it is very likely that there will not be an opportunity to avoid what the hon. member for Sherbrooke thinks might be the fact. However, I believe that this discussion in this regard is worth while, and that as people look back at the history of this debate they will perhaps find that the minister has 20220-205J
Judges Act
pretty well assured-and I think as long as he is minister of this department he will be able to give us the assurance-that competency will be the major criterion in the choosing of a commissioner, and that some of the other factors which have played a part in the appointment of judges will not apply in this case. If it were otherwise then the government would have to go much further than it has at the present time to solve the whole problem, so that we would not be dependant on so many people for their good will.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one point of clarification for the minister. This additional judge who will be appointed will be empowered, will he not, to try other cases which are referred to the exchequer court, or will he be limited only to the duties set out in clause 3?


Guy Favreau: The intention is to limit him during the leave of absence given by the governor in council to the disposal of these cases. However, it is also the intention, whenever there are any cases to be disposed of, to cancel the period of leave and, at the request of the president of the exchequer court, to make available a judge, even if only for a few days or weeks, to dispose of court business and to assist his colleagues.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, I asked earlier whether the commissioner's decision was final. I know that it is the Senate which finally decides in divorce matters. But what is the determining factor to establish whether the Senate must approve or reject the commissioner's recommendations?
Are certain rules to be applied in some cases when the commissioner's decision would not be accepted by the Senate? What are those rules? I imagine that at a given time the judge or commissioner will be the only one to make decisions to grant divorces for the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry I forgot to answer that question when it was put to me along with a few others.
Naturally, I am not saying this to criticize the hon. member, but that question would rather apply to the amendment or to a discussion of chapter 10 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1963, which we passed during the last session and which enacted this legislation. The measure now before us is not meant to amend the statute in any way, but simply to add a judge and to enable him to perform the duties defined in chapter 10.
However, for the purpose of this discussion and with no intention of prolonging it, I might say that the Senate, as such, remains the master and that it finds itself today, as far

Judges Act
as the recommendations of the commissioner are concerned, in the situation the Senate divorce committee was in previously.
For all practical purposes, what we are aiming at is that such recommendations be made by someone able to set down his own jurisprudence and, above all, who would be wise enough to judge to detect fabricated evidence-for such a thing has happened- and who could guarantee that his recommendations, when the time comes for the Senate to accept them, have been thoroughly considered. But the Senate remains the master, because we are not tampering here with chapter 10, unless an amendment is brought forward. However, it must be assumed that if the Senate were to set aside the commissioner's recommendation, it would only be because new evidence had been uncovered or for some other very serious reason. In principle, the commissioner will not be empowered to make recommendations in cases other than those already recognized by federal legislation and by the bill previously passed by the house.
I feel therefore that nothing is subtracted from the Senate's jurisdiction. The present bill changes in no way the duties of the commissioner. Its purpose is merely to allow a judge to carry them out.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Leave of absence to perform duties of officer of Senate.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Richard, I move the following amendment:
That, after the words "of the present section", line 16 of Bill C-96, the words "after consultation with the president of the court" be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now, by leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCE


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of Bill No. C-95, respecting the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one question I should have liked to ask last night. What about the position in the case of those provinces which do not levy a sales tax? Their provincial corporations, if any, have to pay federal sales tax. I presume the federal government will now direct its crown corporations to pay sales tax to those provinces which levy it, on what one might call an exchange basis. Is the government not prepared to give any relief to the two provinces which do not impose a sales tax?
I do not know whether the minister is trying to encourage those provinces to levy sales tax. It is true the crown corporations will have to pay the gasoline tax, and the same is true of motor vehicle licences. But I am concerned about the sales tax.


Mr. Benson:: The hon. member for Edmonton West has raised an interesting question. When provinces do not levy a sales tax, the crown corporations do not have to pay a sales tax to them. This would apply to Manitoba and Alberta. I might point out, also, that there is a considerable difference in the rates of sales tax imposed by the various provinces, from a high of 6 per cent to a low of 3 per cent. In the case the hon. member has in mind, the crown corporations would not be paying sales tax but they would be paying licence fees and gasoline taxes.


Mr. Lamberf:: If I recall rightly, the minister indicated in the budget that the crown corporations would be paying these taxes from April 1, 1964, onward and I take it they have been doing that. My other question is this: Is the minister satisfied that in the event that provinces which do not now have sales taxes embark into the field known as turnover tax, no amendment would be necessary and the wording of this clause and following clauses would be sufficient to cover it? It seems to me the tax referred to is a tax as listed in clause 3, and it says:
Any retail sales tax of general application payable on an ad valorem basis by the purchaser-
No. It does not cover the turnover tax.


Edgar John Benson: The answer to the first point is that crown corporations which were not previously paying sales tax have not, as yet, begun paying the tax in the absence of enabling legislation. When this legislation is passed, they will begin to pay the tax.
As to the question of the turnover tax, a tax which, so far, has yet to be imposed, this would of course have to be dealt with by amendment to the legislation, should any province see fit to levy such a tax. This provision applies to existing sales taxes and I believe legislation could not go so far as to anticipate all the various types of taxes which might be levied in the future.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has any consideration been given to making cash payments to those provinces which do not levy sales tax, in lieu of tax revenue from these corporations?


Edgar John Benson: No consideration has been given to this matter. It would be extremely difficult to calculate how much revenue would have been realized had a sales tax been imposed, or at what rate it might have been imposed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: At the risk of being accused of taking a purely provincial stand on this question, may I say that in my opinion this is another measure by the federal government which is grossly discriminatory against Alberta. May I recall that in calculating the amount of equalization grants made to the provinces by the federal government, revenue from natural resources is taken into account and under this formula the province of Alberta is prevented from receiving large sums of money which would otherwise be due? Alberta does not become eligible to receive this money for the simple reason that the province manages its natural resources in such a way that well over $100 million of provincial revenue is derived from royalties and so on-income which does not represent taxation at all, but rather a share in the natural wealth which is being developed. I say the present system is unfair because other provinces have the right to do the same thing as Alberta; they also own the natural resources in their provinces, or most of them, and they have the right to collect royalties and to manage their affairs in the same way as Alberta does. Residents of the province of Alberta will be paying their fair share of income tax, corporation taxes and all the other taxes, such as excise tax, which the federal government imposes. Yet the refund, the means of returning some of this money to the provinces, is to be made in such a way that Alberta will be excluded from benefit.
I do not know whether there is anything we can do about this if the government is
Crown Corporation Taxes determined to go ahead. At the same time, I can cite a number of instances where a province which did not wish to enter into financial arrangements with the federal government on a certain basis was granted a cash payment in compensation. I have in mind particularly university student grants and family allowances in respect of children of the ages of 16 and 17. At least one of the provinces objected to the federal government making these payments. However, the federal government decided that if this province wished to administer its affairs in a particular way it was prepared to make a cash payment available. I think we are dealing, now, with another situation in which the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba have a legitimate claim for some cash compensation in lieu of sales tax.


Edgar John Benson: In answer to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, all I can really say is that Alberta will share in the receipts from motor vehicle licences and the gasoline tax, although fortunately in Alberta the gasoline tax is the lowest in Canada. As I understand the situation, it is 12 cents a gallon; Alberta is in the very happy position of having a lot of oil.
I really do not think that in this particular bill we can delve into the whole problem of equalization. I might add that we have not received any formal representation from the province of Alberta in respect of this bill expressing the opinion that the province is unfairly treated by this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, the province of Alberta is noteworthy for the attitude it has always taken toward federal affairs. It has not complained about many things. As for the hon. gentleman's observation that Alberta has a lot of oil, I would like to remind him that the province of Ontario enjoys a production of nickel alone whose dollar value is in excess of all the oil produced in Alberta annually. They have the right to recover royalties if they choose to do so. If you add up all the other mineral production in the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec you find that it exceeds in total the value of oil production in Alberta. Therefore I do not accept this as a reason.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the province of Alberta also happens to have the lowest fuel oil tax in Canada. This, of course, is the result of the good administration of their natural resources, so that they get a lot of revenue from them. If you add all these things up, even the things to which the parliamentary secretary has just referred, it seems to me that it only adds to the total impact of the discrimination that is being practised in this bill.

Crown Corporation Taxes [Translation]


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I am not used to congratulating the government but, this once, I think that the measure under consideration is certainly a progressive one.
Even if I do not give it all the importance that the members on the other side of the house seem to give it, I think that it makes amends, to a certain extent, for the injustice committed in the past when crown corporations were allowed to compete unfairly with private enterprise.
I think that this measure will benefit not only the province of Quebec but some municipalities in particular since, as you know, the sales tax was set recently at 6 per cent and the municipalities will get back 2 per cent thereof, according to their population.
Therefore, in that way, the people of some municipalities will again be helped. Moreover, I think that the government intended, through this legislation, to distribute the purchasing power, and that is why I take the liberty of saying that, in my opinion, it does not go far enough in that direction. As a matter of fact, it should also consider the possibility of exempting from the 11 per cent sales tax the municipalities which purchase building materials for public works, because I fail to see the usefulness of imposing an 11 per cent sales tax to increase the budget and then help the municipalities by giving that money back to them. I think that it would be much more logical to abolish that 11 per cent sales tax on building materials bought by municipalities for public works.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make, in order to point out that situation to the Minister of Finance and in particular to the Minister of National Revenue, so that they might think about abolishing the sales tax on building materials that are bought by municipalities for public works.
For the last few years, under the winter works program, the municipalities have been forced to engage in expenditures they would not have incurred were it not for that program.
In so doing, we may be getting the municipalities into debt at a fairly rapid rate, by forcing them to buy materials to carry out projects while the federal government is not contributing to the cost of those materials. By abolishing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials bought by municipalities, we would assist at the same time the unemployed and in general the economic activity all over the country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 2-Payment of tax or fee by corporation listed in schedule.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the confidence he is showing in his parliamentary secretary by allowing him to pilot this measure through the house, and to say what an admirable job he is doing. I want to ask him two questions with regard to the schedule of crown corporations. What crown corporations have been omitted from the list? Second, would he tell the committee what crown corporations do about municipal taxes? Do they pay municipal taxes as assessed by the local municipality in the same way as any other company?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, to deal with the first question first, in my general statement at the resolution stage yesterday I indicated that the corporations which are included here consist of 22 of the 25 corporations listed in schedules C and D of the Financial Administration Act-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What are the three that are omitted?


Edgar John Benson: -plus five unlisted corporations, Bank of Canada, Canada Council, Canadian wheat board, industrial development bank and the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. I went on to say:
Three corporations listed in schedule C of the Financial Administraton Act have been excluded from the schedule to the bill. These bodies, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and the Defence Construction (1951) Limited-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What was the third one?


Edgar John Benson: Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
__differ from the 27 bodies to which the bill
would apply in that they operate almost entirely to provide what might be described as internal services for federal government departments.
I might also point out at this time that when we reach the schedule the Minister of Finance will move that one additional crown corporation be added which was inadvertently omitted.
To deal with the second question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I would say that crown corporations generally do pay grants in lieu of municipal taxes to municipalities, and this applies to the question which was raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix. While it is true that on most municipal undertakings the municipalities pay our sales taxes, crown corporations in turn pay to the municipalities grants in lieu of taxes, as do the departments of the federal government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are they paid in all cases? For a while there was a formula whereby the grant was only paid where the total amount of taxes in a certain city exceeded a certain amount. Has that formula been discarded and is it now paid generally across the board?


Edgar John Benson: I would say almost but not entirely, Mr. Chairman. There are a good many crown corporations and there are special circumstances in the case of some of them where the full amount of what the taxes might be on the basis of assessment is not paid. However, the bases on which these crown corporations are paying municipal taxes are all under review at present.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct only one question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
If I refer to clause 3 of this bill, here is what I see:
Any retail sales tax, generally applied, payable by the buyer according to the value of goods subject to the said tax relating to consumption or use of said goods.
It is understood that in the province of Quebec which is more prosperous than the others, we have a uniform sales tax of 6 per cent. Will the federal government pay this uniform tax of 6 per cent, in the province of Quebec, on all its properties or those belonging to crown corporations or will they be exempt? Will these properties continue to be exempt, as was the case in the past, or will the provincial tax of 6 per cent be paid to the province of Quebec, as do all other private companies doing business in the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: The purpose of the bill is to provide the right to crown corporations to pay sales tax which they do not pay at present, the amount in the case of the province of Quebec being 6 per cent. The main purpose of the bill is to provide the authority for them to pay the sales tax.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I noted just now that the parliamentary secretary, in answering a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, appeared to draw an analogy between payments in lieu of taxes now made to municipalities and the bill now before us. It seems to me they are entirely different.


Edgar John Benson: That is right.


Colin Cameron: One is in the form of a grant, perhaps bearing some relationship to taxation, if you like, but this is the actual payment of taxes.
Crown Corporation Taxes I would suggest that if that distinction is kept clearly in mind the objections of the hon. member for Medicine Hat fall to the ground, because this is merely the payment of a tax and if the province of Alberta does not choose to impose a tax it would seem to me that is their business. I do not think the two things should be confused.


Edgar John Benson: I should point out, perhaps, the only reason I brought that analogy in at all was that the hon. member for Charlevoix said we should exempt municipalities from the 11 per cent sales tax. I was merely pointing out these crown corporations do pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, coming back to the point raised a moment ago, I understand that the department or the crown corporations will pay their 6 per cent sales tax in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) raised a very logical point a while ago. There is no provincial sales tax in Alberta. Therefore, the minister or the parliamentary secretary to the minister are hardly afraid that there might be confusion or charges of discrimination on both sides, because the crown corporations will pay more provincial tax in the province of Quebec than in the other provinces.
I suggested yesterday that everyone should be freed from those taxes. Would not that be more logical? Indeed, if the federal tax was abolished by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), it would cost less to the crown corporations as well as to the provinces and the municipalities.
In my opinion, it is unfair to place the provinces which are better administered than the province of Quebec, in a situation where they are liable to lose a great deal of money when dealing with crown corporations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have a list of the crown corporations that will be paying these taxes. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if Canadian National Railways will be one of them?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Canadian National is one.


David Réal Caouette: Which ones are making
money?


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member for Ville-neuve wants to know which ones are making a profit. The Bank of Canada is making a profit; the Canada Council is making a profit; the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication is making a profit; Canadian Patents and Development Limited is making a profit; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Business of the House
is making a profit; Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited is making a profit; Export Credits Insurance Corporation is making a profit; industrial development bank is making a profit; Northern Canada Power Commission is making a profit; Northern Ontario Pipe Line is making a profit; Northern Transportation Company Limited is making a profit and Polymer Corporation Limited is making a profit.


David Réal Caouette: Is the parliamentary secretary in a position to tell us if the total of these profits equals the total deficit to the other crown corporations?


Edgar John Benson: I really have not an adding machine mind, but in glancing down the list I would say they pretty well balance out.


David Réal Caouette: Is this why we have a national deficit this year as shown by the minister's budget?


Edgar John Benson: I really do not think this has anything whatever to do with it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Justice:
That the schedule to Bill No. C-95, in respect of the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations be amended by adding thereto the name of the following corporation:
The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now, by leave.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we might see it as being five o'clock.


Guy Favreau: I am pleased to second that motion. May I take this opportunity of repeating what I said a few minutes ago, namely that the situation which prompted me not to have the income tax bill called will not exist as of tomorrow, and tomorrow the first order of the day will be the income tax bill,

to be followed by the resolution preceding a bill to amend the Bank Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Shall we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge or tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond for the purpose of assuring uninterrupted access to the Vancouver international airport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps all hon. members are not familiar with the Vancouver international airport, but they are familiar with the international airports at Dorval and Malton, the two busiest and largest airports in Canada. I should like them to imagine the situation if Dorval and Malton were served simply by a two-lane swing bridge over a channel, and this bridge opened for tug boats and barges as they passed. You can imagine what traffic confusion would result at these two busy international airports, and if the situation occurred in Montreal or Toronto I am sure we would have heard a great deal about it in this house. However, that is the situation which exists in Vancouver.
According to the figures released on May 5 by the Department of Transport, the Vancouver international airport is the third busiest in the country. The metropolitan area of Vancouver, with 800,000 people in it, is the third largest in the country, but in Vancouver we have this very serious problem of access to the airport.
Vancouver international airport is situated on an island, Sea island. The bulk of the population of the metropolitan area lives on Burrard peninsula, in the city of Vancouver, the municipality of Richmond, the municipality of Burnaby, New Westminster and other places. At the present time there is no direct access from Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities to Sea island where the airport is located.
In order to get to the airport, traffic must cross a bridge to Lulu island and from that island it crosses the Moray channel bridge, which is the two-lane swing bridge I have

mentioned. This bridge is open very frequently, and at such times traffic to and from the airport is stopped. The bridge opens for traffic moving along the channel, and there have been times when it has been kept open because of mechanical failure. At least this is inconvenient, and at worst is downright dangerous.
This is certainly very inconvenient if you are trying to get to the airport to catch a certain flight, but it is dangerous when you consider the question of mercy flights arriving at Vancouver international airport, and quite frequently these flights come from all parts of the province, from the interior, Vancouver island, and up the coast. When they land, ambulances have to be there to transport the patients quickly to the Vancouver hospitals. In that sense the very narrow bridge which is the only connection from the island to the mainland is a positive danger.
I think everybody will agree that the access is certainly inadequate. There is a problem there and, as always, the question is what do you do about the problem? Hon. members may wonder how the federal government becomes involved in this. At first glance it may seem to be a purely local problem, but this is not the case.
Vancouver airport is owned by the federal government in the name of the Department of Transport. Sea island is now 75 per cent under federal government ownership, the bulk of the land being used by the Department of Transport and by the Department of National Defence. The R.C.A.F. station on Sea island is closing, but the land is being transferred to the Department of Transport and, as I say, 75 per cent ownership of the island is in the name of the federal government. The remaining land is occupied by two subdivisions, some industrial properties and some farms. The federal government investment in the airport is quite great, and it is to be increased. Construction of a new air terminal building, at a cost of $20 million, will start this year and is scheduled for completion in 1967.
I would also submit that the federal government is involved in this respect, in that the body of water which separates Sea island from the Burrard peninsula-the north arm of the Fraser river-is a navigable water under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
However, I do not accept the point of view that the entire cost of this new crossing should be borne by the federal government. I think there is room for co-operation here between the federal and the provincial governments. There was formerly a crossing in the place where we want one now, an old 20220-206
Access to Vancouver Airport wooden bridge, and the provincial government in British Columbia has in part recognized that it has some responsibility here.
Speaking in the British Columbia legislature in February last, the minister of highways of that province said-and I am quoting from a news story in the Vancouver Province:
The minister said Ottawa asked him to share the cost of a study-which may range from $30,000 to $50,000-of a possible new route to the Sea island airport.
Whether or not a new structure would be built would depend on federal co-operation, he said.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I put a question on the order paper, question No. 969, to confirm this point. It read as follows:
Has the Department of Transport or any agency of the federal government requested the department of highways of British Columbia to share in the cost of a study concerning the advisability of building a new bridge or tunnel to connect the city of Vancouver and Sea island, the site of the Vancouver international airport and, if so, who has been commissioned to carry out the study and when is a report expected?
I received the reply today from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), and the reply is as follows:
At the request of the department of highways of British Columbia the Department of Transport has agreed to share in the cost of a study of traffic and technical problems involved, and have commissioned the firm of Phillips Barrett and partners to undertake this study and a report is expected in about six months time.
There seems to be a little conflict there with what the minister of highways of B.C. said. He said the federal government asked him to participate in this study, and the Minister of Transport says the department of highways of B.C. asked his department to participate in it. However, quite apart from that, I am pleased that the two governments have agreed on this study and that the study is under way.
As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, quite a number of local organizations have interested themselves in this matter over the years, among them the council of Richmond, the chamber of commerce of Richmond, and the Sea island community association. Just recently the Vancouver board of trade, certainly a very influential body in that city, added its voice to those asking for this crossing. In a letter to the Minister of Transport, dated May 1, 1964, they submitted quite a long resolution, the operative part of which reads as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government be urged to proceed immediately with the development of a direct crossing between Sea island and the Burrard peninsula, preferably a tunnel, to serve the Vancouver international airport with a view to completion by 1969.
I am sure that the people of Richmond who have been looking for this for a number

Access to Vancouver Airport of years are greatly encouraged by the support which the Vancouver board of trade has given to the project. I myself am very much encouraged by the amount of support there appears to be for it.
This is not the first time the project has been discussed in this house. It was brought up in 1962 under similar circumstances in private members' time by my predecessor from Burnaby-Richmond, Mr. John Drysdale, a Conservative party member. During that debate all of the Conservative members, but one, spoke in favour of the motion. The only one who had any words of dissent was the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who just managed to get in a few words before six o'clock. However, as he is not here today I am sure all other Conservative members will support it.
At that time the spokesman for the Liberal party was the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, and he had this to say, as recorded at page 2632 of Hansard for April 9, 1962:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be grateful to the hon. member who has introduced this resolution which concerns a problem of acute importance, I am sure, to those who live in the great metropolis of Vancouver. The resolution invites the federal government to give consideration to the advisability of constructing either a bridge or a tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond, which municipality I take it forms part of the hon. member's constituency.
Later on Mr. Chevrier, in order to expedite things, had this to say:
In order not to delay the resolution and also to give others an opportunity to speak, I will sum up my remarks-
I will not continue the quotation from that point. So it is encouraging that there was support from other parties in the house when Mr. Drysdale presented this resolution two years ago. In the meantime something has been done. The provincial government and the federal government have decided to cooperate in carrying out a study for a new crossing. The type of crossing which I think most people would like to see is a tunnel. I think this is the most practical method, and this will be borne out by the engineering studies.
I hope the engineers who have been commissioned will report within the six months period and that the federal government will take the initiative in meeting with the government of British Columbia in order to work out a plan of action for this project. If they start very soon, perhaps the new tunnel from Vancouver to Sea island might be ready shortly after the new Vancouver international airport opens in 1967.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I enter into this debate this afternoon because I am a member from a Vancouver constituency, and one which is really only a few city blocks from the Sea island airport which lies in the constituency of my hon. friend, the member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). As the hon. member and myself must go to that airport each time we leave Vancouver, and arrive there on our way back, we are both very interested in it and are interested in the progress the federal government is making in regard to the construction of an international airport on Sea island.
My hon. friend has described how the Fraser river, coming down through the Fraser valley and moving westward to the sea, fans out into a delta. In the mouth of that delta is one very large island, Lulu island, comprised of low farmland, and further to the sea, on the seaward side, there is a small island, Sea island, divided from Lulu island by a channel called the Moray channel. Forming the water on the north or Vancouver side of these islands is a channel called the north arm of the Fraser river. This north arm of the Fraser river is used extensively by fishing boats and it is also used for booming logs up and down the Fraser. It is a very important channel, although a relatively narrow one.
On the south side of the islands, or the American side, is the main channel up and down which ships pass on their way to and from New Westminster. Sea island has for a long time been a municipal airport and in very recent times it was purchased by the federal government for a federal airport under the Department of Transport. I understand that an international airport there is now in process of planning and development. One of the great problems facing the airport at Sea island, as my hon. friend has noted, is the question of access to it. This has been, as my hon. friend has pointed out, the subject of considerable discussion.
I want to add to what has been said here today by referring to a memorandum dated November 22, 1962, from the chief engineer, development engineering branch of the Department of Public Works. This memorandum is entitled, "Background information on link between Vancouver and Sea island". The chief engineer says:
Access from the city of Vancouver to Sea island over the north channel of the Fraser river was provided for-
-that is, was first provided for-
-by a swing bridge called the Marpole bridge built in 1901 and rebuilt in 1925.

This, as everyone from the Vancouver area remembers, was a bridge which had encountered so many disasters from tugs and barges knocking against it that it had become a quite ludicrous spectacle, a farce to Vancouver, and it was the subject and butt of many jokes over the years. A request was made in April, 1953, by the province of British Columbia for the federal government to participate in providing access to Sea island because of the air force base which was located on the island. It was estimated at the time that this structure would cost $1,200,000; hence, the federal government's participation, which had been agreed upon as being one third of the cost, would have been a maximum of $400,000. A proposal was put forward in 1956 by a consulting firm for a tunnel access to Sea island across the north arm of the Fraser river. That was roughly the same project as we are talking about today.
The province, however, decided that it was their intention to proceed with the construction of the Oak street bridge, as my hon. friend will remember, between the city of Vancouver and Lulu island, and the Moray channel bridge between Lulu island and Sea island. This was to be built under the B.C. toll authority, and they requested the federal government to contribute to these two bridges in lieu of their previous commitment for the replacement of the Marpole bridge. But the federal government felt that the Oak street bridge was an integral part of the highways system of British Columbia, and as such did not feel they should contribute to that structure. They agreed, however, in 1956 to pay one third, up to a maximum of $400,000 toward the Moray channel bridge after the province proposed to operate it on a toll free basis. Payment of $400,000 was made to the provincial government in March of 1958. Mr. Regier, the predecessor of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, asked in the house in July, 1958 the following question of the minister of public works, then Mr. Green:
Could the minister bring the house up to date on the situation with regard to the Oak street bridge or the only bridge connecting Sea island and Lulu island? Has a settlement ever been arrived at with the government of British Columbia, and if so what was It?
Mr. Green replied:
There was a payment provided in last year's estimates of $400,000 which was to be applied to the cost of the bridge over the Moray channel, and that has been paid to the provincial government.
Mr. Regier asked:
It has been paid?
Mr. Green's answer to that question was "Yes". After the construction of the Oak street bridge, the Marpole bridge was closed to highway traffic and its swing span re-
20220-206J
Access to Vancouver Airport mained open. It has since been a hazard and impediment to navigation in the very busy north arm of the Fraser; therefore the north Fraser harbour commissioners, who are responsible for that area, are most anxious indeed to have the old span removed. Several requests were made by interested parties to have the federal government provide financial assistance toward the cost of the Oak street bridge in order to make it toll free, but the government's answer has remained, as I have said, that they did not feel they should become involved in this provincial structure.
In March of 1961 the residents of Sea island were informed of the closing of the old swing bridge between Sea island and Lulu island, which at that time was called, as my hon. friend knows, the Ebume bridge. This bridge was closed and then Sea island had access only to the Moray channel via the two-lane swing bridge, which from time to time closes off access to Sea island, a very busy international airport.
I want to discuss for a moment just how busy is the Vancouver international airport, and how very essential it is, in view of the growth of Vancouver, that adequate access be provided on a continuous basis to Sea island. The new Vancouver international airport terminal will be built on that side of Sea island closest to the city of Vancouver or closest to the north arm of the Fraser river, which is the water body the crossing of which we are discussing. On June 3 of last year treasury board issued a minute approving in principle the cost of constructing a new international airport at Vancouver on Sea island. These were the rough costs which they approved at that time, so as to give the house some idea of the size of the project. The main air terminal building, $11 million; heating plant and services, $1 million; aprons and taxi ways, $2.5 million; miscellaneous services, including water, sewage system, parking, lighting, land lines, consulting services, and so on, $5,400,000; making a total estimated cost as approved by treasury board of $19,900,000.
The Department of Transport responsibility, I am told, ends at the airfield-that is to say, they are not responsible for access roads to the airport; their responsibility ends after it has been built-and so it becomes a matter for other jurisdictions to take an interest in the question of access roads. However, the federal government has allocated a sum of $50,000, as my hon. friend has indicated, for a survey which is underway to determine the best possible means of access, either by high level bridge suitable to clear the north arm of the Fraser river so as to permit passage of tugs, barges, fishing vessels

.Access to Vancouver Airport and the like, or alternatively by means of a tunnel which would go under that relatively narrow passage and provide continuous access and complete freedom for traffic both in the channel and for traffic to and from Sea island. While this survey does not implicate the federal government, it certainly indicates their considerable interest in the question of access roads to the airport.
While on the subject of this new international airport and its approaches, I discovered this afternoon while looking up some material the rather interesting sidelight that Department of Transport officials plan to hold a meeting in Vancouver on May 26 to discuss with restaurant operators who may wish to bid for restaurant concessions at the airport the problem of providing restaurant facilities. If the department can choose a concessionaire in advance and while the airport is in the planning stage, that concessionaire would be given considerable latitude in planning the facilities which he would operate. That is an. indication of the extent to which planning is going ahead, and how urgent it is that planning go ahead in respect of the channel crossing which will be required just as quickly, I am sure, as the restaurant is needed.
Vancouver airport by nature is changing, and this is important when reviewing figures relating to Vancouver airport. Recently a satellite airport was built by the Department of Transport at Pitt Meadows, in the Fraser valley, to take care of light aircraft operating in the area, training aircraft, and so on. The removal of light aircraft from Vancouver international airport has substantially reduced the number of landings and take-offs from the airport and has left more room for the heavy volume of commercial traffic.
Vancouver is the hub of the largest network of scheduled commercial aircraft flights in western Canada. During the summer there will be three round trips a week to Hong Kong and Japan. There will be one flight a week to New Zealand, with an extension each fortnight to Australia. There will be two flights a week to Mexico and South America and another two to Honolulu. There will be three weekly flights over the polar run to Europe. Almost all of these flights are performed today with DC-8 jet aircraft. In addition there are dozens of flights each day to British Columbia and points in the Yukon, to eastern Canada and across the Canada-United States border to points in the United States.
The number of flights going into and out of Vancouver has increased remarkably in the last decade and seems likely to continue in the next. There were 51,000 such flights in 1953, and I am now talking about flights into and out of the city of Vancouver, not

touch-down flights or local flights on and off the airport. This number grew to 73,000 in 1963, and the average aircraft size at the same time has become considerably larger. In the next 10 years a further increase of another 50 per cent is expected, according to statisticians of the Department of Transport, and the size of aircraft will again increase considerably. Only Toronto and Montreal today rank ahead of Vancouver in airport operations. Ten years ago, in 1953, there were approximately 430,000 scheduled passengers using Vancouver airport. In 1963 this number had almost doubled to 830,000. A further growth to approximately two million passengers is expected by 1975.
Let us now consider the ground traffic problem which this growing air traffic creates. I am told by Department of Transport officials that there is a general slow but steady growth in the number of private automobiles using airports in Canada. The tendency of the Canadian people is not to travel more and more by bus and commercial facilities to airports, but to take their own automobiles. Therefore the number of private automobiles using the airports of this country is rising in proportion. Airport parking facilities are becoming larger and larger. Consider this in regard to the new Toronto airport, with which we are all familiar. At the new international airport at Toronto there are 2,402 stalls in the main building for the parking of cars. In addition there are 432 stalls in the administration building and a further 800 for employees which are located closer to the cargo area. That is a total of over 3,600 parking stalls in and around the Toronto terminal.
So that when we look at this problem, Mr. Speaker, we begin to get an idea how vitally important it is that access on a permanent basis and without interruption by swing bridges is provided to Sea island, with its envisaged growth on the basis of the figures I have given. It is, therefore, for this reason that I am glad indeed to see this resolution which has been moved today by the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond, and to have had an opportunity of bringing these figures before the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very interesting statistics which the two hon. members who have just spoken have placed before the house, and in particular I noted that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) read into the record a press clipping to the effect that the minister of highways for British Columbia has already agreed to, and suggested that the government of British Columbia would be willing to go ahead with some consideration of this project, in collaboration with the federal government.

If hon. members will look at the order paper they will note the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond put down his notice of motion on February 18, and after listening carefully to what he said I suggest that what he is asking for in the notice of motion is, in fact, already under way. It seems to me' therefore, that any discussion of this motion' or even its passage, would be superfluous. He said the British Columbia minister of highways made it publicly known that his government was prepared to participate in an undertaking to improve this bottleneck in access to the international airport at Vancouver. Now we are told that today the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond received a reply from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to the effect that the federal government, also, has agreed to undertake a survey and make a study.
The notice of motion clearly states that the government should give consideration to the advisability of doing just this. The first consideration, one would expect, is that a survey or study would be undertaken in order to find out what will be the best type of construction to meet the need. The hon. member who spoke before me indicated that $50,000 had been appropriated by the federal government to pay its share of this survey. He intimated it was necessary to find out whether a high level bridge would best meet the need or whether a tunnel would be more suitable. I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond that he ask the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw his motion under the terms of standing order No. 49 on the grounds that what he is requesting is already being done.


Robert William Prittie: I would not agree to withdraw the motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the house that if the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond speaks he will close the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond could speak on a point of order. I believe there is provision in our rules that a motion on the order paper should not call for something which has been done or which is being done, and perhaps, on a point of order, the hon. member could indicate whether he is willing to withdraw his motion so that we could get on to the discussion of some of the other motions which are on the order paper.


Robert William Prittie: On the point of order, I submit that what I am seeking has not as yet been satisfied. If this motion were passed the government would be accepting some respon-
Access to Vancouver Airport sibility. So far, the government has agreed to make a joint study with the government of British Columbia, and neither of the two governments has accepted any responsibility. Therefore, I would not agree to withdraw the motion, although, by unanimous consent, if the rules of the house permit, I would not object to debate ceasing at this point, provided the motion could maintain its place on the order paper.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: First, I should like to make it clear that I am speaking as the member for Coast-Capilano, Coast-Capilano being the second most populous riding in British Columbia and probably the one which makes the greatest use of the Vancouver international airport. It includes the municipalities of west Vancouver, north Vancouver and the district of north Vancouver.
West Vancouver has the highest per capita income of any municipality in Canada and the district of north Vancouver is in the first half dozen. These people, in the main, are people in the high income brackets-people who are executives with corporations; people who often work in branch offices in western Canada. Frequently they travel not only up and down the west coast but also across Canada, and they are particularly interested in communications and in the improvement of our transportation facilities. Time is often of the essence, so any reduction in the amount of travelling time which could be brought about as a result of better access to Vancouver airport is an important matter as far as they are concerned.
We have this large airport in the Vancouver area. We have a new terminal under construction. We are now concerned with more direct access from downtown Vancouver, and it is possible by building a tunnel or a bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river to reduce the travelling time to, possibly, 20 minutes. This is a remarkably short time when we consider that it takes at least an hour to travel from most of our Canadian cities to the principal airports serving them. There have been many discussions in recent years about the ridiculous situation which is evolving with respect to air transportation. We can now travel from Vancouver to Toronto in about four hours. We can cross the Atlantic ocean in five hours, and when even faster aircraft are developed this time may be halved or cut to one third. In other words we will be able to travel thousands of miles in a matter of minutes, certainly in less time than two hours. In these circumstances it is ridiculous that we should not be making provision to reduce travelling time between the

Access to Vancouver Airport principal centres of population and the airports. Many studies have been made with respect to using aircraft for this purpose-moving people out to the airports by helicopter, for example. But it has been found that the use of helicopters for this purpose is uneconomic and that the tariff which the individual would have to pay is many times more than the cost of the conventional limousine.
Referring again to the remarkable reduction in travelling time which has taken place in recent decades, let us think back to the late 'thirties when Trans-Canada Air Lines first began to operate a regular service across this country. It used to take 24 hours to travel from Montreal to Vancouver. After the war, as a result of the great improvements in aircraft, the speed of air transport moved up from 100 to 250 miles an hour, and in the last few years that speed has been doubled with the arrival of the large jets. Travelling time has been shortened in another way, too, because more people are travelling by air an increasing number of aircraft are being scheduled on long distance runs without intervening stops. Therefore, instead of spending 24 hours on a cross country flight, as was the case before the war, or a dozen hours in the late 'fifties, the time taken is now only four or five hours.
Looking ahead and as a result of the immense investment in supersonic aircraft, we can envisage machines which will fly at speeds of 2,000 miles an hour, capable of covering the distance between Vancouver and Montreal in a matter of, perhaps, one and a half hours. So it would seem ridiculous that we should still be taking an hour to get from downtown Vancouver to the international airport. Obviously we need to devise faster and more efficient services, particularly local services, to carry people to and from our airports.
I have a preference. I would like to see the most direct route used to the Vancouver airport. Speaking again in terms of my own personal preference, I would also like to see a tunnel built under the north arm of the Fraser river. Many of those who have travelled from the airport to Vancouver have encountered difficulties with the bridge over the Moray channel. As recently as three weeks ago the bridge stuck part way open. I happened to be in one of the limousines which were unfortunate enough to be delayed until the bridge was repaired. We sat there for several hours waiting for the repairs to be made and for the bridge to be closed. So that bridges themselves present a handicap and in my view tunnels are preferable.
We have an excellent operating example within a dozen miles of the Vancouver international airport, a much larger tunnel project under the main stem of the Fraser river.

This tunnel has been very successful and in my opinion a similar development would be appropriate at the south end of Granville street, one of the main arteries leading out of Vancouver, which would take traffic in a straight line from the hotel Vancouver right out to the new Vancouver international airport that we will have in 1967 or thereabouts.
If I may refer briefly to the new air terminal itself, I trust it will be of a design that is characteristic of the west coast, that it will be constructed of materials typical of our great forest and other resources, that it will be imaginative and that advantage will be taken of the new engineering and material producing techniques which will not only reduce costs but will also make it a wonderful facility that will be a joy to the eye and convenient to operate.
I should also like to say a word about the evolution of our great transportation centres. In the era of the railway, hotels and many of the principal businesses began to congregate around the railway stations. The station area became the focal point for considerable investment in hotel, commercial, business and other facilities. This is beginning to happen in respect of our great international airports. It is beginning to happen, for instance, around the Montreal airport. One can also see the new motel-hotel accumulations taking place around Malton airport. Visitors passing through can be met at or near the airport by their business confreres or their friends. Meetings can be held conveniently and these people can then board an aircraft again and move on.
This means that many people will be commuting to airports or the areas adjoining our great airports to hold business meetings and social gatherings. Therefore access to airports becomes of great importance not only for people who will be travelling by air, but for other people who will be meeting them for business purposes or to hold social or other gatherings.
At Vancouver international airport we have numerous developments, several of which are quite remarkable. There is the headquarters base for the operations of Canadian Pacific Airlines, Canada's other great international air line. This company is very important to Vancouver not only because its headquarters and principal maintenance depot are there but because it is now providing very effective links across the northern Pacific to Japan, across the southern Pacific to Hawaii, the south Pacific islands and Australia and also south along the west coast of North America into South America. It reaches across the pole to northern Europe. It crosses Canada, and on to Madrid and Rome.

This great air line has its base at Vancouver. It is important that it continue to thrive, and one of the ways in which we can be sure it will thrive is to ensure easy access to and from Vancouver international airport. At that airport we also have the world's foremost helicopter operation, Okanagan Helicopters, a pioneer venture which earned its wings, so to speak, in the great Kitimat development but which is now pioneering many other activities, including the installation of power lines not only in Canada but in other countries such as Mexico and elsewhere. We also have Pacific Western Airlines, the regional air line which transports people who arrive on the large jets to local areas in British Columbia, northern Alberta and down the Mackenzie river. Its operations are also based on Vancouver and the Vancouver international airport.
I have looked at the resolution and I must say that substantially I agree with its content. I agree that the federal government should give every consideration to the provision of easier access in the form of a bridge or tunnel to the Vancouver international airport. However, I should also like to emphasize the fact that the federal government is in fact giving considerable consideration to this matter and is participating in a joint study with the province of British Columbia in respect of this facility. Personally I hope that a tunnel will be built and that it will be built soon. I am convinced that this is a necessary step and I am prepared to argue that the federal government should participate financially in later stages, including the construction phase of this all-important project. [Translation]


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make about this motion. First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) for introducing it.
In the first place, I ask the government to consider the advisability of building this bridge and tunnel between the city of Vancouver and Sea island. But, at the same time,
I suggest that the government should extend its study to other similar projects in Canada.
There is no shortage of manpower in Canada. We are well aware of the number of unemployed in the country. Technicians or architects are not lacking either; there are many of them. Moreover, we have all the building materials available for that purpose. Then, why is the government waiting to act? Once again we shall be told: It is money.
Why then does the government not use the facilities of the Bank of Canada to create credit so that development may take place in our country?
Access to Vancouver Airport
The Bank of Canada is there, at the service of the people. And as long as the people put their confidence in that institution, the government should use it to promote the welfare of French Canadians and all Canadians across the country, especially when it comes to gigantic projects such as the building of bridges and tunnels.
It is a shame to see, after hundreds of years, in the province of Quebec that not a single bridge spans the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec.
It is about time to build bridges and tunnels between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence river-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Quebec West, but the Chair feels that he is moving too far away from the motion now before the house.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I am referring again to the matter of bridges and tunnels. I understand, from the notice of motion, that it is only a question of building a tunnel or a bridge between Vancouver and Sea island. But we, from the province of Quebec, are up against such problems; we only have a small bridge. That is why I got carried away, a while ago, and now I am going back to the beautiful province of Quebec where the government would have so much to do.


An hon. Member:: Make a motion accordingly.


Lucien Plourde: Now, what pleases me in this
motion is the spirit which the sponsor put into it. I hope that before six o'clock the hon. members will be well disposed towards that spirit and will approve that building project.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) is to be congratulated for bringing to the attention of the house this resolution urging the federal government to construct a bridge or tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river between the city of Vancouver and Sea island in the municipality of Richmond, for the purpose of assuring uninterrupted access to the Vancouver international airport.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) the Department of Transport has this project under active consideration. Hon. members appreciate the importance of air travel. I wish to point out that according to figures released by the

Access to Vancouver Airport Department of Transport there has been a tremendous increase in the number of people using the airways in preference to any other mode of transport. Despite a slight drop in traffic, Toronto international airport was Canada's busiest for the fifth straight year in 1963. A few days ago the federal Department of Transport revealed that 86,012 takeoffs and landings were clocked, compared to 89,376 in 1962. These figures do not include strictly local traffic remaining under tower control, such as planes making practice landings.
Montreal international airport placed second for the fourth consecutive year with an 80,821 aircraft movement compared to 82,541 in 1962. However, Montreal with its heavy overseas traffic saw the largest number of giant jet airliners. Its air traffic controllers handled 15,025 movements by aircraft with a gross take-off weight of more than 200,000 pounds. Toronto international airport recorded 12,676 such movements.
Ranking third and lower, but all maintaining their 1962 standings, in non-local traffic were Vancouver international airport, with 72,881 take-offs and landings, 67,237 in 1962; Winnipeg international airport was fourth with 64,763 and 61,740 in 1962.


Mr. Barnett:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether or not the hon. member is aware of the fact that hon. members of the house have already been given this information in a press release issued by the Department of Transport?


Hubert Badanai: I am aware that some press releases containing these figures were given out, but I have no doubt there are some members of the house who are not aware of them. Of course, the hon. member has kept close check on the figures, and I believe that they bear repeating because of the importance of the subject.
As I was saying, Ottawa airport ranked fifth with 61,555 take-offs and landings and 58,469 in 1962; Calgary was sixth with 57,674 and 51,915 in 1962; Edmonton industrial airport, formerly municipal, was seventh with 49,489 and 46,810 in 1962; Cartierville, a suburb of Montreal, was eighth with 44,277 and 39,235 in 1962; Toronto island was ninth with 35,448 and 36,563 in 1962 and Victoria was tenth with 30,964 and 31,295 in 1962.
The decline in aircraft movements, Mr. Speaker, at some airports is attributed to the increased use of larger planes in commercial traffic and to a decrease in local flying. This is especially true of Vancouver international
airport, which was relieved of most of its small plane traffic by the department's new satellite airport at Pitt Meadows.


Mr. Rapp:: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour will recall that you called private members' notices of motions ten minutes before five o'clock. It is now ten minutes before six o'clock and would Your Honour consider calling it six o'clock?
I am not implying to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond that we are tired of listening to the debate, but I thought I should bring this to Your Honour's attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I recognize that the house did proceed to the consideration of private members' business ten minutes before the regular hour. However, I can only call it six o'clock now by unanimous consent of the house.


John Watson MacNaught: I think it would be the desire of hon. members if you would now call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to calling it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the house leader put on the record the business for tomorrow and Friday?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the house leader for the official opposition, I wish to state-and this only repeats what I said earlier this afternoon-that the first item of business to be called tomorrow will be the second reading, and the committee stage of course, of the Income Tax Act amendment. Then we will be calling the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Bank Act and also the Quebec Savings Bank Act. As our third item we will deal with the resolution preceding the bill which will call for certain amendments to the National Housing Act. That will be followed by the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act, following which we will take the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act.
On Friday, as announced earlier, we will be taking the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. By unanimous consent this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 14, 1964