1964-03-25

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling "Presenting reports by standing and special committees"
1 have the honour to present in English and in French the first report of the special committee on procedure and organization. The report will be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved:: That this house does resume its sitting tomorrow at 11 a.m. instead of 2.30 p.m. and adjourn at 6 pjm. instead of 10 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. I do so for the purpose of clarifying a decision we took earlier. Perhaps I should have asked the question then, but I did not want to start a debate. I believe it was a five party understanding earlier today that the hours of sitting tomorrow would be 11 to 1 and 2.30 to 6. Was that the understanding when the motion put by the minister was carried?


Guy Favreau: Like so many members of this house, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have been deprived of luncheon so many times in the last two months I had forgotten about the luncheon adjournment. The understanding of the house, I think, is that tomorrow the hours should be the same as they would normally be on Friday.



PROCEDURE THIS DAY IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

['I wish to table two copies of order in council P.C. 1964/389 dated March 14, 1964, relating to the Canadian military contribution to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.']
Guy Favreau: May I, on motions, make a statement about the business of the house.
The government intends to proceed with final supplementary estimates after the question period until 4.30 p.m., and at 4.30 p.m. to take interim supply. The reason, which I wish to explain to the house, is that the Prime Minister, who is presently detained at home for reasons which were obvious yesterday, is expected to speak on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture. We shall try to take up that item as early as possible tomorrow.



[Stage Direction]
p.c. 1964/389
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I wish to table two copies of order in council P.C. 1964/389 dated March 14, 1964, relating to the Canadian military contribution to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-83, to adopt a national flag (Canadian red ensign).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


James Norris Ormiston: The purpose of this bill is to adopt by act of parliament the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We object to the introduction of this bill under standing order 71 under which the title of any bill must be specified. We feel that the title is not specified, at least in the French version which merely makes mention of "Pavilion rouge du Canada". We also object under standing order 72 which reads as follows:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that this is the introduction of a bill. The only copy I have, the one in front of me, is in English.


Mr. Fisher:: Shame.

Notices of Motions


Mr. Speaker:: The title, according to the statement made by the sponsor, is "an act to adopt a national flag (Canadian red ensign)". At the time of printing I presume the proper translation will be made into French. At this stage of the proceedings I do not see that any point of order arises nor am I able to accept the point of order advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe. In the circumstances I have to ask if it is the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.


James Norris Ormiston: the first reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
March 23-The Minister of National Health and Welfare: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider Bill C-75 to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions in Canada payable to contributors and survivors (the Canada pension plan);
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion is tranferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	(a) How many houses were constructed for the Indian people in the Yukon from June, 1957 to April 8, 1963 (b) in what locations in the Yukon Territory were such houses constructed, and how many such houses were constructed in each location (c) what was the cost of each unit so constructed in each location, and what was the total cost of construction?
2.	(a) How many houses have been constructed
for the Indian people in the Yukon Territory since April 8, 1963	(b) where were such units constructed, and how many of such units were constructed in each location (c) what was the cost of each unit so constructed in each location, and what was the total cost of construction (d) how many such units are now under construction, and in what locations within the Yukon Territory (e) how many such units are to be constructed within the next year, and at what locations and at what cost?


Mr. Badanai:: 1.	(a) 106. (b) and	(c):Location	No. of Units	CostOld Crow	1	$ 1,1001	1,5181	3,3051	3,0321	2,5701	5,2341	5,277Total	7	$22,036Dawson	1	$ 1,7541	1,7541	1,7541	8171	8171	1,7001	1,7001	3,2001	3,2001	3,2001	3,2001	3,200Total	12	$26,296Carmacks	1	$ 2,5361	2,5531	2,7341	2,2911	1,9281	2,7001	2,7001	1,7001	500Total	9	$19,642Location	No. of Units	CostPelly Crossing	1	$ 2501	2501	2501	2501	672Total	5	$ 1,672Mayo	1	$ 2,4521	2,5971	2,4281	2,4711	2,4271	4,2001	4,2001	4,2001	1,7001	2,800Total	10	$29,475Haines Junction	1	$ 3,3251	3,0631	3,3491	2,9391	3,5001	4,0001	4,000Total	7	$24,176Whitehorse	1	$ 3,3331	3,1721	2,4571	3,8661	3,8661	3,8661	3,8661	3,8661	3,8661	1,7001	3,200Total	11	$37,058Carcross	1	$ 1,700Total	1	$ 1,700Ross River	1	$ 1,7001	1,0501	1,0501	1,0501	1,700Total	5	$ 6,550
Questions
Location	No. of Units	CostLiard River	1	$ 2,5001	2,5001	2,5001	2,5001	2,5001	2,8001	3,5961	2,6951	3,1341	1,7001	2,7001	1,7001	1,7001	2,800Total	14	$35,325Teslin	1	$ 1,1701	1,1701	2,8111	1,0501	3,127Total	5	$ 9,328-	-Champagne	1	$ 7201	7201	1,2001	1,130Total	4	$ 3,770Telegraph Creek	1	$ 8301	8301	1,6711	1,6711	1,6711	1,331Total	6	$ 8,004Takhini Crossing	1	$ 301Total	1	$ 301Atlin	1	$ 1,7001	3,2001	3,200Total	3	$ 8,100Selkirk	1	$ 6001	6001	6001	600Total	4	$ 2,400
1444

Questions
Location	No. of Units Cost
Whitehorse	1	$	3,200Total	1	$	3,200Burwash	1	$	3,200Total	1	$	3,200
Totals-106 units as a total cost of $242,233.00.
2.	(a) 14. (b) and (c):
No. of
Location	Units	CostWhitehorse	2	$	2,400 eachMile 1202	1	2,400Old Crow	2	5,000 eachCarmacks	1	2,000Pelly Crossing	1	2,000Liard River	2	1,400 eachRoss River	4	1,400 eachKluane Band	1	2,4002. (d) Nil.	(e) Ten units	are planned for	the Yukon
agency at an estimated cost of $40,000. The locations in which the units will be constructed will depend on the application for housing by individual Indians to be considered by band councils and the superintendent of the Yukon agency.
applications for research grants


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National Health and Welfare get in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department of National Health and Welfare were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Under the national health grants, the following applications for grants to finance research projects were received in the fiscal years 1961-64: 1961-62, 329; 196263, 364; 1963-64, 370.
2.	1961-62, $4,055,119; 1962-63, $4,489,102; 1963-64, $4,665,989.
3.	1961-62, 191; 1962-63, 191; 1963-64, 176.
4.	1961-62, 103; 1962-63, 101; 1963-64, 85.
5.	1961-62, 32; 1962-63, 70; 1963-64, 106.
[Mr. Badanai.l
A few projects were cancelled or altered at the request of the researchers or their sponsoring provinces.
6.	Research projects do not receive approval as submitted under the national health grants when they exceed the funds allocated for this purpose and when they are considered by appraisers, consultants and advisory committees to be poorly designed or unsound research.


ADDRESS BY JOHN HALSTEAD, PARIS
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Is a Mr. John Halstead employed by the Canadian embassy in Paris and, if so, in what capacity?
2.	Did he, as reported in the Montreal Star of November 19, 1963, address a meeting organized by the C.I.I.Q. in Paris and, if so, what was the substance of his remarks?
3.	By whom was he invited?
4.	What are the objectives of the organization known as C.I.I.Q.?
5.	Does the government of Canada consider itself to be in sympathy with these objectives?

Answer: 1. Yes, Mr. Halstead is minister at the embassy in Paris.
2.	No.
3.	Nobody.
4.	According to our information, the address of that organization is 14 Houdon street, Paris 18. The objectives of the organization could probably be obtained by writing to that address.
5.	This is a private organization. Unless it is proven that the purposes of the organization or the manner in which it goes about achieving those purposes are contrary to Canadian laws or to the laws in force in the countries where it carries on its activities, there would apparently be no call for official comments.


HEALTH AND WELFARE DENTAL HEALTH GRANTS
Mr. Slogan: 1.	How much money has been spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare for dentistry and dental health programs and research in each of the last ten years?
2.	What is the breakdown of the money spent in each year?
3.	What percentage of the public health research grant was earmarked for dental research as compared to medical research in each year?
4.	How does this compare with the amount of money spent by the general public on general health as compared to the amount spent for dental health?
5.	Has the minister received a request from the Canadian Dental Association for an increase in dental research grants?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to increase the amount of money contributed to dental research?

Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.
Expenditures within the department
Expenditures under
Dental health division

1953-54	40,320
1954-55	36,461
1955-56	44,927
1956-57	51,709
1957-58	46,473
1958-59	62,034
1959-60	62,736
1960-61	66,816
1961-62	67,035
1962-63	69,360
1963-64 (est.)	70,000
2. No	breakdown has been made of ex-	
penditures within the department.		Under the
national	health grants the breakdown is as	
follows:	Dentistry and dental health programs	Research
	$	$
1954-55	279,790	21,7921955-56	338,435	26,1491956-57	385,199	25,6261957-58	446,513	25,4241958-59	478,702	28,8801959-60	534,625	164,2641960-61	865,451	39,8601961-62	527,273	67,0611962-63	560,154	50,3121963-64	(est.) 599,569	48,0093.	Expenditures under the health grants for dental health research have been related to expenditures on all health research (dental and medical) in the following percentages:
Percentage expended
Medical services		the national
directorate		health grants
	$	$
345,000	(average)	
345,000	(average)	301,582345,000	(average)	364,584345,000	(average)	410,825345,000	(average)	471,937345,000	(average)	507,582345,000	(average)	698,889345,000	(average)	905,311345,000	(average)	594,334345,000	(average)	610,466345,000	(average)	647,578"Table	I. Expenditures on	Personal CarePhysicians'	Dentists'services	services(.$'000,000)	($'000,000)1953	176.6	60.51954	188.6	66.41955	206.5	68.61956	240.1	81.51957	269.2	87.31958	295.5	98.11959	326.8	100.11960	354.5(f)	112.41961(f)	383.2	118.81962(f)	395.2	132.4
(f) Estimated
It is estimated that in 1961, of an aggregate gross income of $383,200,000 received by physicians for providing personal medical care services, $335,784,000 was received under private auspices, in either direct payments from patients or benefit payments by voluntary non-profit and commercial insurance agencies.
for dental research In 1961 it is estimated that a total of
1954-55	1.40%
1955-56	1.75
1956-57	1.48
1957-58	1.31
1958-59	1.38
1959-60	6.22
1960-61	1.22
1961-62	1.79
1962-63	1.42
1963-64 (est.)	1.14
$118.8 million was received by dentists for providing personal dental care services."
5.	No.
6.	As far as the national health grants are concerned, dental research is considered within the broad framework of the public health research grant. There are no specific allocations for particular fields in this grant. The amounts of funds in this grant are subject to periodic review with regard to the need for research assistance.
4.	The following is an excerpt from health care series, memorandum No. 16 prepared by the research and statistics division of the Department of National Health and Welfare and dated March 1963.
20220-92j


INCREASED ALLOWANCES UNDER VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Is it the intention of the government during this session of parliament to raise (a) the ceiling of

Questions
$1,250 in personal property allowance to a single recipient of war veterans allowance (b) the ceiling of $2,500 in personal property allowance to a married recipient of war veterans allowance (c) the ceiling of $9,000 of allowable real estate including his home which a recipient of war veterans allowance may own?


Mr. Teillei:: The War Veterans Allowance Act is under continuous study and considerable research is given those areas where financial matters, such as rates and ceilings and property limits are involved.
At the present time, it is not possible to state when amendments to this legislation may be brought forward for consideration.


P.O. DEPARTMENT LOSSES ON SECOND CLASS MAIL
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the deficit incurred by the Post Office Department during 1963 on second class mail from the United States?
2.	What was the aggregate loss to the Post Office Department on United States second class mail handled in the past 10 years?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1. Information on which to estimate the deficit for 1963 is not yet available.
2.	Information for the last ten years is not available. The department has recognized for some time, particularly since the release of the Glassco report, that the statistical data being maintained was insufficient to give the necessary information relative to second class mail posted in the United States for delivery in Canada. During the past year the department has engaged in an extensive study as to required statistics covering the entire postal field, and recently the services of management consultants were engaged to assist in these studies.
For the year 1961-62 information has been obtained from the United States administration as to the volume of second class mail posted in that administration for delivery in Canada. By using this information, together with statistics compiled in this department, it is estimated that the deficit for handling second class mail from the United States for delivery in Canada during 1961-62 is $3,900,000 divided as follows: (a) on second class mail posted in the United States for delivery in Canada, $2,800,000; (b) on United States second class mail posted in Canada for delivery in Canada, $1,100,000.


INDIAN SCHOOL STUDENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the 50,549 Indian children attending elementary and secondary schools (a) how many are attending elementary schools (b) how many are attending secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?

3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


Hubert Badanai: 1. (a) 43,679; (b) 4,371.
In addition to above, there are 2,499 Indian children attending either elementary or secondary schools, but no information is available as to grade.
2.	Percentage of Indian pupils attending secondary schools, 8.9; percentage of nonIndian pupils attending secondary schools, 21.5.
3.	Ninety seven.


NEW STERILIZATION METHOD FOR HOSPITALS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare investigated the claims made by Dr. Fritz Hahn for the efficiency of a new method of sterilizing hospital operating rooms and other hospital rooms by the influence of an electric field?
2.	Has this new method been tested to determine whether or not it might have any worth-while application in Canadian hospitals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. and 2. The Department of National Health and Welfare has taken steps to obtain full information from Germany regarding the work of Dr. Fritz Hahn in the development of an electromagnetic field as a means of killing viruses and bacteria. When complete information is available it will be carefully studied to determine whether the process has worth-while application in Canadian hospitals.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Will post offices be constructed at Wallace, Advocate Harbour, Collingwood and Southampton as previously announced?
2.	When will tenders be called for the construction of all or any of these post offices?


Mr. Deschatelets:: 1. No; it was not possible to acquire suitable sites at reasonable cost.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 63-T-1003
Mr. Loney: 1.	What is the name of the successful applicant to civil service of Canada competition No. 63-T-1003?
2.	What is the basic salary of the appointee?
3.	What are the qualifications of the appointee?
4.	At what date did the appointee commence his or her duties?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: 1. The successful candidates as a result of competition 63-T-1003, postal clerk 1, Post Office Department, Kincardine, Ontario, are as follows, in order of merit: Clifford Manley Robinson, David Maxwell Henderson, Mrs. Janet Victoria Gazel, Edbert T. Bushell, William Albert Inkster.

Messrs. Robinson and Henderson are entitled to the veterans' preference for overseas service.
All appointments are subject to satisfactory-medical examination.
2.	$3,330 per annum. ($3,330-4,380); semiannual increases to $3,630; then annual increases to $4,380.
3 and 4. This competition was advertised to establish an eligible list from which future vacancies will be filled.
To date, there have been no vacancies and, consequently, no appointment has been made from the eligible list.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN OCEANOGRAPHIC STUDIES
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Has Canada been invited to take part in the meeting of the intergovernmental oceanographic commission, which is to be held at UNESCO House, Paris, in June?
2.	Has Canada been invited to take part in a joint study of the Kuroshio current, in the Pacific ocean (a current similar to the Atlantic gulf stream) ?
3.	Did Canada send a representative or an observer to the meeting of experts of eight nations, in Tokyo, which meeting was sponsored by the Japanese government, UNESCO, and the international oceanographic commission?
4.	Has Canada decided to join with the six or seven other nations which plan to send out research ships annually, starting in 1965, to carry out simultaneous research projects over periods of 30 to 45 days?
5.	Have any representations on this subject been made to the federal government by any Canadian organizations, British Columbia fishermen, or by the government of British Columbia?
6.	Since the variations in the Kuroshio affect the fisheries, is the government considering an early study of this question, and when may the house expect a decision?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Canadian fisheries scientists will have access to the results of the Kuroshio investigations.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, QUEBEC
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	To what degree has Quebec participated in the roads to resources program since its inception?
2.	What has been Quebec's share of federal contributions to the program?
3.	What share of federal contributions to the program has been received by the nine other provinces, together with the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
4.	Where are the roads built in Quebec under this program, what was the total cost of each, and how much did the federal government contribute toward the cost of each?
5.	What requests were received from Quebec, with respect to this program, in 1962-63?
Questions
6.	What amounts for this program does the federal government intend to place at Quebec's disposal for the next fiscal year?
7.	What amounts will be allocated for the other provinces, together with the Yukon and Northwest Territories for the next fiscal year?

Answer: 1. The information obtained from the provinces shows total of $6,296,623.
2.	The amount of the federal contribution to the province of Quebec to date is $3,032,787.
3.	Out of a total amount of $7,500,000 made available to each of the ten provinces under the roads to resources program, the federal contribution to the nine other provinces to date is as follows: Newfoundland, $3,403,824; Prince Edward Island, $4,913,503; Nova Scotia, $6,553,326; New Brunswick, $4,499,999; Ontario, $4,902,219; Manitoba, $5,432,560; Saskatchewan, $5,369,806; Alberta, $6,596,382; British Columbia, $6,021,780.
The agreements were only concluded with the ten provinces. The roads to resources program provides no arrangement with the two territories.
4.	Name of road: Amos-Matagami road.
Location: About 123 miles of new road, of
which a certain part is either in a very advanced stage or finished. From the town of Amos, the road goes north to lake Matagami and New Hasco mines.
Estimated cost (in October 1960): $4,535,000.
Contracts awarded to date: $4,893,444.
According to information given by the province, a total amount of $4,738,223 has been spent until now. The share paid by the federal government to date amounts to $2,253,587.
Name of road: Lake Albanel-Lake Waco-nichi.
Location: Construction of 95 miles of new road from the southern end of lake Waconichi to a point situated a few miles to the north of the 51st parallel and the eastern bank of lake Albanel.
Estimated cost (October 1960): $5,900,000.
Contracts awarded to date: $3,765,906.
According to information sent by the province, a total amount of $250,092 has been spent up to now. Up to date, the contribution of the federal government amounts to $125,046.
Name of road: Chapais-Desmaraisville road.
Location: Construction of a section of 30 miles from a point located 14.6 miles east of Desmaraisville up to a point located approximately 27 miles west of Chapais.
Estimated cost (in October 1960): $3,000,000.
Contracts awarded to date: $3,094,475.

Questions
According to information sent by the province, a total amount of $1,308,308 has been spent up to now. The contribution of the federal government to date amounts to $654,154.
5.	In 1962 the province requested authority to add five works to the authorized section of the Chapais-Desmaraisville road, at an estimated cost of $318,000 (Chapais being mile point "0" and Desmarais, mile point "71").
(1) At mile 22, a bridge over Ruisseau-Lamarck river, at an estimated cost of $85,000; (2) between mile 22 and 27, gravel coating and related works, $45,000; (3) at mile 59.3, a culvert on a tributary of Petite Riviere Was-wanipi, $8,000; (4) at mile 61.3, a bridge over Petite Riviere Waswanipi, $100,000; (5) at mile 71, a bridge over Bachelor river, $80,000. Total, $318,000.
*Those works, which are in addition to the program, are presently under study.
6.	Subject to certain conditions, the agreement provides that the credit the federal government will make available to Quebec during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965 shall equal the lesser of the two following amounts, $1,500,000 or half the construction costs incurred during the fiscal year.
7.	Newfoundland, $750,000; Prince Edward Island, $1,000,000; Nova Scotia, $900,000; New Brunswick, $750,000; Ontario, $750,000; Manitoba, $750,000; Saskatchewan, $687,500; Alberta, on March 31, 1965, an amount equal to the lesser of the two following amounts:
(i) $7,500,000, less the total of all the amount previously paid; (ii) half the construction costs incurred as of March 31, 1965, less the total of all the amounts previously paid.
Agreements were concluded only with the ten provinces. The roads to resources program provides no agreement with the territories.


FEDERAL BUILDING, INGONISH, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is consideration being given by the department concerned to the construction of a building in the Ingonish area of Victoria county that would provide accommodation for the post office and Department of Fisheries?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.


IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE, FEDERAL BUILDING, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What general improvements and maintenance work is to be carried out at the North Sydney federal building this year and what is the starting date for such work?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Alterations and additions to lock boxes postal accommodation, $2,000. It is proposed to call tenders for this work in August, 1964.
Interior painting, $2,400. Proposed for the winter of 1964-65.


COCKTAIL RECEPTIONS, TAXATION DIVISION, REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Do officials of the national revenue department, taxation division, hold cocktail receptions in key communities across Canada?
2.	If so, when and where have these receptions been held?
3.	What is the cost of these receptions and who is invited.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


RAILWAY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1
Mr. Rideout: 1.	Did the railway association of Canada or any of its member companies, such as the C.N.R. and C.P.R. request the board to prescribe a procedure before scrapping the 46 year old Canadian railway board of adjustment No. 17?
2.	Where the terms of section 19 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act complied with?
3.	Will the Canadian railway board of adjustment No. 1, as presently constituted, be continued until such time as the provisions of the act are complied with?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. No, as far as the Canada labour relations board is concerned.
2.	This matter is at present under review.
3.	Information is not available at the present time.


INTERNATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH AGENCY
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Was an invitation received from the minister of public health of France, Mr. Raymond Marcellin, since November 6, 1963, asking Canada to participate in the creation of an international research agency on cancer and, if so, what was the answer of the government?
2.	Did the Canadian government consult cancer-ologists and public health experts concerning the participation of Canada in such an agency?
3.	Did Canada have one or more representatives or observers at the first and second meetings of such organization?
4.	Did any Canadian physician or medical association submit representations concerning assistance to the said organization to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, if so, was assistance granted and in what form?
5.	What role does Canada play in the World Health Organization?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1, 2 and 3. No formal request for Canadian participation has been received.
4.	No.
5.	In concert with all the members of the World Health Organization, Canada's aims are

to further enthusiastically the objectives of the organization, as expressed in its basic principles. In terms of health personnel, more than 60 Canadian specialists in various health and related disciplines are members of 24 of the 36 WHO expert advisory panels. In the area of specialized training, Canadian medical establishments-medical schools and schools of hygiene and nursing, clinics and teaching hospitals have provided and continue to make increasingly available training opportunities for WHO fellows and those under international auspices. On the professional staff of WHO, at headquarters or in the six regions, the number of Canadians total more than 4 per cent of the total professional staff.
Canada is now serving its third three year term on the executive board since WHO came into existence in 1948.
In current year estimates over $1,000,000 is provided to meet Canada's assessment for the annual budget of WHO, Canada being the sixth largest contributor of funds to the organization.


STRONTIUM 90 LEVELS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Is the level of strontium 90 higher in Canada than in any other country of the world and, if so, what are the reasons for this?
2.	Does the government carry out tests to measure strontium 90 concentration in human bones or are tests carried out to measure only air and ground contamination?
3.	What are the latest available statistics on this matter?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 
PUBLIC BUILDING, KEARNEY, ONT.
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Who is the contractor for the public building at Kearney, Ontario?
2.	What are the contract provisions concerning employment of local labour?
3.	Is any local labour from Kearney or the immediate area being employed on this job?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Young's (Huntsville) Limited, Huntsville, Ontario.
Questions
2.	The following clause is included in Department of Public Works construction contracts: "The contractor will use Canadian labour in carrying out the work to the full extent to which it is available, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the work. The contractor will employ labour from the locality where the work is being executed to the extent it is available and shall use the offices of the national employment service in the recruitment of workers wherever practicable."
3.	Yes.


TRANSFER OF DUTIES RESPECTING WORLD FAIR
Mr. Laiulippe: Have any duties in connection with the administration of the Canadian world exhibition been transferred to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and, if so, what is the nature of such duties and on what date were the duties assumed?


Mr. Sharp:: I have stated publicly that I will expect my parliamentary secretary to assist me in the discharge of my responsibilities in relation to the Canadian world exhibition.
This responsibility was assigned to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 13, 1964 and Mr. Pepin's interest in this function became effective as of that date.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE, MERIGOMISH, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amounts of their tenders on the proposed post office construction at Merigomish, Nova Scotia?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Fraser, Mason and Fraser, New Glasgow, N.S., $10,993; Mc-Dougall Construction, New Glasgow, N.S., $11,839; Robert Higgins Co. Ltd., Trenton, N.S., $12,736.55; Eastern Contracting Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S., $13,200.
2. Fraser, Mason and Fraser, New Glasgow, N.S. have been awarded the contract.


CONTRACT FOR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, FORT CHIMO, QUE.
Mr. Howard: 1.	During the fiscal year 1963 was any contract awarded for the construction of bungalows or houses at Fort Chimo, Quebec to Ron Engineering and Construction (Quebec) Limited and, if so, what was (a) the amount of the contract (b) the number of bungalows or houses (c) the cost of each bungalow or house, and (d) the use to which the bungalows will be put?
2.	Since the contract was awarded has any revision been made to the said contract or any request made for such a revision and, if so, what are the details thereof?

Questions


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Yes. (a) $185,368 (six dwellings, $155,508; power line, $6,000; roadwork, $23,860); (b) six (one-storey 3-bedroom bungalows); (c) $25,918; (d) to provide living accommodation tor employees of the Department of Transport.
2. No revision has been made to the contract but a request has been received for an increase of $7,984.62 relating to shipping cost. This matter is presently under review by the department.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: X should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works based upon an answer given earlier today to written question No. 446. I should like to ask the minister if he would look at the answer he gave us to ascertain whether a glaring mistake might have entered into the answer, because it indicates that more than $25,000 was spent for each one of six three-bedroom bungalows at Fort Chimo. In addition, he might ascertain whether $6,000 for a power line, $23,000 for road work and a potential additional amount of $8,000 for shipping costs are in line, in view of the government's desire to keep down expenditures.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will look into this question.


POST OFFICE SITE, PORT LAMBTON, ONT.
Mr. McCutcheon: Is the Post Office Department currently negotiating to purchase property for the erection of a post office in Port Lambton, Ontario and, if so (a) at what stage are the negotiations, and (b) with whom are they being carried on?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.
(a)	and (b)-not applicable.


MAIL CONTRACT, STONY RAPIDS-BLACK LAKE, SASK.
Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake): 1.	When were tenders called for the mail contract between Stony Rapids and Black Lake in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	How many companies entered bids on this contract?
3.	What were the names of the competitors for this contract?
4.	What was the figure in each case, and what were the determining factors in selecting the bidders?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Public tenders for proposed air mail services are not called in view of the fact that only those air transportation companies licensed by the air transport board may operate in a particular area. We were advised that Calm Air and Saskair were the only air transportation companies licensed to provide a charter air service between Stony Rapids and Black Lake, Sask. Both companies

were asked to submit offers in accordance with the department's practice of inviting bids from all companies licensed by the board.
2.	Two.
3.	Calm Air and Saskair.
4.	Identical offers of $18 per round trip were received from both companies. This is in accordance with the tariffs each has filed with the A.T.B. for charter air service and the A.T.B. regulations.
In addition, Calm Air offered to provide the ground service between the post offices and airports at $2 per mail day. Saskair which has been conveying mail to other points in northern Saskatchewan including Stony Rapids, has a separate arrangement for ground handling at Stony Rapids and no additional charge at this point was involved. An offer to perform the required ground service at Black Lake for $2 per day was received from the Roman Catholic mission. Thus, in both cases, the over-all cost was $20 per day.
Because Saskair provides the connecting mail service at Stony Rapids, it was decided that it was in the interest of the postal service to accept their offer.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Has the government any plans to set up a national employment service office in the Northwest Territories and, if so, when and where will this office be established?
2.	If not, will the government investigate the need and desirability for such an office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No.
2. Since the office at Yellowknife was closed, the unemployment insurance commission has kept the area under constant review to ensure that adequate service is provided.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Has the government any plans to set up an unemployment insurance office in the Northwest Territories and, if so, when and where will this office be established?
2.	If not, will the government look into the need and desirability for such an office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No.
2. Since the office at Yellowknife was closed, the unemployment insurance commission has kept the area under constant review to ensure that adequate service is provided.


EXPERIMENTS TO HELP DRUG ADDICTS
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government considering conducting an experiment such as is now being conducted in

New York city whereby drug addicts are each receiving daily doses of opium derivatives, with the aim of finding out whether addicts can be kept at level dosages and therefore lead otherwise normal, constructive lives?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under Canadian legislation the provision of drugs in the treatment of addiction is entirely within medical judgment and responsibility in accordance with the concepts of good medical practice.
Meanwhile, the government is watching with close interest the experiment which is being conducted in New York city. The government is also watching with interest the results of experience in the United Kingdom whereby treatment procedures utilizing narcotic drugs are being conducted and in the light of any success to be derived from the New York and other experiments, will give


Hubert Badanai: (a)	Great Britain	$579,381(b)	France	236,843(c)	Belgium	69,600(d)	Italy	161,257


REPAIRS TO TUG &quot;CANSO&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	What were the names and amounts of tenders that were submitted for repairs to tug Cansol
2.	Has a contract been awarded and, if so, to whom and at what amount?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Lunenburg Foundry & Engineering Ltd., Lunenburg, N.S., $3,758; Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B., $4,374; Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, N.S., $4,918; Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation Ltd., Halifax Shipyards, Halifax, N.S., $5,700.
2. No. Tenders presently under study.


WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON    TREATMENT OF HARRY PRUDER
[Stage Direction]
Question No.494-Mr. Loney:
1.	Was Harry Pruder, of R.R. No. 5, Wiarton, Ontario, notified to report to Westminster hospital, London, Ontario, during the month of March, 1964 and, if so, what was the duration of Mr. Pruder's stay in hospital?
2.	What arrangements were made by the veterans hospital to accommodate Mr. Pruder while being examined?
3.	Was return transportation available the day of discharge from hospital?
4.	Does a war veteran instructed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to report to hospital have to pay out of pocket expenses for meals and hotel accommodation in such circumstances?
Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. Mr. Pruder was notified to report to Westminster hospital during March 1964 and was examined on an outpatient basis.
Questions
further consideration to present narcotic policies.


UNCOLLECTED CORPORATION INCOME TAX
Mr. Bigg: What is the total amount of uncollected corporation income tax now due and unpaid for (a) 1961 (b) 1962 (c) 1963?


George James McIlraith: This information is not available in the form requested.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURES ABROAD
Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John): What amounts were spent by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, during the last three years, in (a) Great Britain (b) France (c) Belgium, and (d) Italy?
1961-62	1962-63	Totals$563,172	$631,674	$1,774,227172,118	182,079	591,04083,433	78,015	231,048170,912	173,996	506,1652.	He was offered rations and quarters in Westminster hospital, which he declined.3.	Return transportation by public conveyance was not available on that day.4.	When a veteran refuses accommodation in a departmental institution, he must himself arrange for his accommodation.


DISPATCH OF TROOPS TO CYPRUS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What reasons prompted the Canadian government to dispatch French speaking troops to Cyprus in advance of units to be despatched by other UN members?
2.	Have any British or American contingents been sent to Cyprus and, if so (a) in what numbers (b) on what dates?

Answer: 1. A battalion of the Canadian Army Regular is designated on a rotational basis to be the United Nations stand by battalion, to be available on short notice. At the time a decision was made to send Canadian troops as part of a United Nations force to Cyprus, the R22eR was the UN stand-by battalion, having been so designated since 5 April, 1961, and was therefore able to be dispatched without delay. Since then, another battalion of the Canadian Army Regular, 1st Battalion, The Canadian Guards, has been designated as the UN stand-by battalion.
2. British troops were already in Cyprus before the UN force came into being and it is understood approximately 3,500 will be included as part of the UN force. No United States contingents have been sent to Cyprus.
Questions


SUPERVISION OVER SEAL HUNTING
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What control has the government of Canada over the commercial hunting of seals in both the coastal waters and in the open seas?
2.	What department of government is responsible for such supervision?
3.	What actual supervision has been made of seal hunting in the gulf of St. Lawrence and waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador in 1964?
4.	Are any changes contemplated in the regulations with a view to better conservation measures of the various types of commercially hunted seals?
Answer: 1. Regulations tor the protection of seals are enacted under authority of the Fisheries Act. However, these can apply only to Canada's nationals.
2.	The Department of Fisheries.
3.	Close to 100 officers and men are supervising operations to the extent they can by land and water patrol. This effort is supplemented by aerial patrols.
4.	The regulations have recently been revised to require the licensing of all boats of over 40 feet in length that take part in the seal fishery. These regulations will enable closer control.
From an international standpoint conservation of seal herds is one of the matters which receives attention by the northwest Atlantic fisheries commission. Preliminary discussion took place at the commission's annual meeting at Halifax last year and all countries party to the convention, which establishes the commission, were instructed to be prepared to discuss the matter fully at the next annual meeting to be held this year at Hamburg.


LANCASTER, N.B., MILITARY HOSPITAL    TRANSFER OF CONTROL
Mr. MacRae: Have discussions taken place between the Department of Veterans Affairs, on the one hand, and the cities of Saint John and Lancaster in New Brunswick and the government of New Brunswick, on the other, concerning the transfer of Lancaster military hospital from the Department of Veterans Affairs to either local or provincial authority?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No such discussions have taken place.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 63-PO-30-18
Mr. Francis: 1.	Who was the successful applicant in promotional competition 63-PO-30-18 postal officer 1 for the Ottawa post office which closed on November 8, 1963?
2.	How many candidates entered this competition?
3.	Who were the ten candidates judged, in the opinion of the board, most satisfactory for the position and in what order were they ranked?
4.	How many years of postal experience did the successful candidate have?

5.	Did the applicant have any previous experience in this branch or in this work?
6.	Did any other candidate in the competition have experience in this branch?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Mr. J. A. P. Ladouceur.
2.	Seventeen.
3.	Three other candidates were considered qualified for the position. Having regard for the right to privacy of the candidates and the possibility that publication of information could prove to be not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, it is felt that the names of the other candidates in this competition and details concerning their qualifications should not be published. This is in conformity with the general practice laid down by the civil service commission.
4.	Eleven years.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS BY PORTS
Mr. Dinsdale: What was the number of bushels of wheat shipped from the following ports for each year 1956-63 (a) Eastern (b) Vancouver (c) Churchill?
Answer: Shipment of wheat from Canada, special ports, crop years 1956-57-1962-63:
		Vancouver	
		New	
		Westminster	
Crop Year Eastern1	(bushels)	Churchill1956-57	102,016,102	102,882,125	16,250,3201957-58	120,463,858	127,497,256	18,395,0461958-59	123,836,279	105,162,912	18,409,3221959-60	115,861,229	92,246,198	21,700,0451960-61	164,151,331	118,720,154	20,094,8901961-62	152,072,853	145,520,324	19,244,8681962-63	137,641,309	129,747,805	21,761,757
'Includes Fort William-Port Arthur direct, Canadian St. Lawrence ports, Canadian Atlantic seaboard ports and U.S.A. Atlantic ports.


REVENUE FROM 4 PER CENT EXCISE TAX
Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John): What revenue did the government collect from the application of the first 4 per cent of the tax on construction materials and production machinery during the period from June 13, 1963, to March 31, 1964?


George James McIlraith: This information is not available as sales tax accounting is not maintained on a commodity basis.


P.O. DEPARTMENT PAYMENTS TO ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY
Mr. Peters: What was the amount of revenue paid by the Post Office Department to the Ontario Northland

Railways (a)	for the years 1960,	1961, 1962, and
1963 (b) for each month of 1963		(i) for service
on trains 46 and 47 (ii) for service on trains 49		
and 50 (c) what was the amount in each case		
paid for each	service for 1963 I	[i) mail sortingservice (RPO)	(ii) regular mail	(iii) drop mail(iv) overflow	mails (v) other	postal revenue?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: (a) 1960, $170,069.74: 1961,		
$167,815.02;	1962, $170,172.65	; 1963, $171,-
208.72.		
(b)	(i)	(ii)
	Trains 46	Trains 49
	and 47	and 50
January	$ 9,618.81	$2,582.13February	8,751.89	2,415.35March	9,942.75	2,566.79April	9,431.35	2,634.25May	9,889.39	2,900.80June	9,423.21	2,580.43July	9,594.29	2,636.09August	9,672.12	2,766.08September	9,648.83	2,867.44October	10,188.50	3,161.56November	10,054.02	3,322.96December	11,999.86	6,277.56(c)	Trains 46	Trains 49and 47	and 50(i)	$82,869.60	nil(ii)	nil	$36,711.44(iii)	nil	nil(iv)	35,345.42	nil(v)	3,000.00	nil


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of government contract regulations together with any other documents relating to the awarding of contracts by the government for the supply of goods and/or services to the government.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this notice of motion with the hon. member and have pointed out that the words "together with any other documents" as they appear in the notice of motion would involve the production of all the contracts as well. Subject to the deletion of those words, there is no objection to the motion carrying.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation as stated by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Lalulippe:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of
Motions for Papers
Labour or officers of his department and officials of the national employment office, unemployment insurance commission, the competent authorities in Maine and Vermont, officials of the United States department of the interior and labor secretariat, and between the unions and the Canadian and American companies concerned with the problem of Canadian loggers permanently or seasonally employed in the United States forest industry who cannot obtain unemployment insurance benefits on their return to Canada.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we would ask that notices of motions Nos. 9 and 10, as well as those numbered 29 to 52 inclusive be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly those motions stand.


CONVERSION TO FRENCH OF STATION CJBC, TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams and other correspondence exchanged between the C.B.C., individuals and organizations, in connection with the conversion of the Toronto radio station CJBC from English speaking to French speaking.
Maurice Lamontagne: May I speak briefly on this motion at this time. This motion is for the production of copies of telegrams and other correspondence exchanged between the C.B.C. and individuals or organizations in connection with the conversion of Toronto radio station CJBC from an English station to a French station. I am informed by the C.B.C. that a total of 1,904 letters have been received in this connection. I am further informed that the comments expressed in these letters are almost evenly divided between those favourable and those unfavourable to the conversion.
If the C.B.C. were to comply with the motion as it now reads it would require the duplication of over 3,800 communications representing a total of approximately 5,000 pages. The cost involved for this reproduction would be approximately $2,000. On the basis of this information, perhaps the hon. member would wish to withdraw his motion as he is now provided with what might be considered as the necessary, pertinent details. If the hon. member is not agreeable to this course, I have no objection to the motion.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous interest that has been shown in this question, particularly in my area and the area surrounding the city of Toronto, I do not think $2,000 is too much when we consider how much it takes to keep the C.B.C. organization going. I wish, therefore, to proceed with the motion.

Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Did I understand the minister to say that, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister-


Some hon. Members:: There was no reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Stefanson (for Mr. Smallwood):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or other documents forwarded since April 22, 1963, by any member of parliament representing an electoral district in the national capital region, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State or any official of these departments or to the civil service commission on the subject of collective bargaining for public servants.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Since the hon. gentleman in whose name the motion stands is not here, and I had hoped to speak to the hon. gentleman about this motion and the next one, I wonder if they could both stand?
Motion stands.


LEASE OF SPACE IN BOURQUE BUILDING
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Hales (for Mr. Chaplin):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all leases, agreements to lease, letters of intent to lease or other similar documents, dated since the 22nd day of April, 1963, relating to the occupancy by the government of Canada of space in the proposed Bourque memorial building in the city of Ottawa, together with a copy of all correspondence, briefs or other documents exchanged since the said date between the Minister of Public Works or any of the officers of that department and the owners of the said building or anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf.
Mr. McWilliam:: There is no objection to this motion, and the documents are tabled herewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Hales (for Mr. Weichel):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all telegrams, letters, representations and briefs made to any member of the government between April 12, 1963, and the date hereof regarding the setting up or constitution of the Canada development corporation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of the names and addresses to whom Bill C-130 of the first session of the twenty sixth parliament entitled an act to provide for the disposition of Indian claims was sent, not including those distributed by the queens printer, and for a copy of any accompanying letter or other communication.
Hubert Badanai: There is no objection to this motion, and the hon. member has already been given copies of this list. There is no objection to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all applications for, and inquiries relating to the purchase, lease or rental of Indian reserve lands which are now situated in the Burns Lake Indian agency between the period January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1962.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I present another request and ask that this one be withdrawn?
Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


INDIAN RESERVE LANDS, BURNS LAKE, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group or organization relating to Indian reserve lands in the Burns Lake Indian agency since January 1, 1963.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. member be good enough to withdraw this motion, inasmuch as there is no correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a request to the hon. member that he withdraw the motion, as there is no correspondence.


Frank Howard: If that is the case I would be quite happy to withdraw it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STEWART-CASSIAR ROAD, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and the government of the province of British Columbia since January 1, 1963 relating to the Stewart-Cassiar road.
Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, this is entirely acceptable to the government, subject only to the assent of the government of the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government, or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, organization, or group since January 1, 1963 relating to dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) control measures.
Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection to releasing correspondence relating to Squalus suckleyi.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67
Frank Howard: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, group, or organization since July 1, 1963 relating to the H.M.C.S. Chatham at Prince Rupert, B.C.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no objection to this, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, briefs or memoranda written or presented by any staff association of the public service of Canada since the 22nd day of April, 1963, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State or any official of these departments or the civil service commission on the subject of automation in the public service of Canada, together with any replies thereto.
Maurice Lamontagne: No objection, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Fairweather:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other messages between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice and the John Howard society, the Elizabeth Fry society about the location of the new women's prison in Cornwall, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Nialsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the letter written by the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers with respect to the participation by the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in future federal-provincial conferences.
Mr. Davis:: There is no objection to this motion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the representative list and/or representative lists of suppliers (now in use) as defined by paragraph 2 (e) (ii) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954 from each department of the government.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion and motions Nos. 79, 80 and 81 with the hon. member, and I would ask to have them stand in order to get clarification.


Mr. Nielsen:: I believe the minister intends to include No. 78 as well, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then motions Nos. 78, 79, 80 and 81 stand.
Motions stand.


ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Rheaume:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the federal government or any branch or agency thereof and (a) the government of the province of Quebec (b) the Eskimo people of northern Quebec or any of their representatives (c) any other person, agency or association, relating to the proposed transfer of administration of Eskimo affairs in northern Quebec from the federal government to the government of the province of Quebec.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the government will be glad to table all this information, subject only to the assent of the government of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Erik Nielsen: Before leaving this order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to motion No. 82, I would just like to point out to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the consent of the government of Quebec will not be necessary with regard to the correspondence passing between the government and the Eskimo people, referred to in part (b) of the motion.


Arthur Laing: It is part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I think the motion would have to be dealt with in its entirety rather than by way of separation.

Motions for Papers


POST OFFICE SITE, MARGAREE VALLEY, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Bell (for Mr. MacEwan):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government and any agency or branch thereof, and any other person, group or organization, regarding the proposed site, or sites for a post office at Margaree Valley, Nova Scotia,
Maurice Lamontagne: No objection, Mr. Speaker. Motion agreed to.


SERVICE CONTRACTS LET WITHOUT TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Nielsen:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing:
1.	What service contracts have been entered into by or on behalf of the government by any contracting authority as defined by paragraph 2 (c) of the government contracts regulations being P.C. 1954-1971 dated December 16, 1954, since April 8, 1963, without the approval of treasury board for engineering, architectural or related or similar services?
2.	Where the amount payable under such contract did not or does not exceed $15,000 (a) by whom was the contract awarded (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) what method was used to select the contractor (d) what factors determined the selection of the contractor (e) what was the amount payable under the contract (f) where tenders were invited, were such tenders invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or lists (g) where tenders were invited, how many were invited and from whom and how many received and from whom in each case (h) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what method was used to select the name or names of those invited to tender (i) where tenders were invited from a representative list or lists, what factors determined the selection of those invited to tender (j) in each case, where was the service to be performed (k) in each case was an opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought by the contracting authority or any person on behalf thereof from any defeated Liberal candidate or any person in any way associated with any Liberal organization in Canada; and, if so, by whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation sought and from whom was such opinion, suggestion or recommendation given and in each case was the same verbal or written?
3.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for the hire of equipment to be used in or incidental to the execution of a work (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 3(a)?
4.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for advertising or related or similar services (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in the answer to 4(a) where the amount payable under the contract did not or does not exceed $5,000?
5.	(a) What is the answer to (1) above in the case of service contracts for transportation services, or the hire or charter of vehicles, vessels or aircraft; (b) what is the answer to each of the questions in (2) above in the case of each such service contract described in 5 (a), (i) where the service was or is to be furnished or performed by a common carrier at a rate not in excess of standard rates (ii) where the amount payable

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

hon. members that it would be quite impossible to meet the requirements of the notice without several months' work in many departments of the government. I have not been able to obtain from all the departments concerned a precise estimate of the time and expense that would be involved in meeting the requirements of this motion. I have it from some departments, and it is obvious that it will require several months and several tens of thousands of dollars. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw this notice of motion, and I will be very glad to meet with him to see if one can be drafted that can be met without making such an unreasonable demand on the treasury.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the minister before entering the house, and I would be very happy to have the motion stand until he can assess a different method of approach, perhaps over the Easter recess, and I will do likewise. Then perhaps we can consult again after we come back on the 6th.
Motion stands.


CONSTRUCTION OF CATV TRANSMISSION TOWERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Souiham:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, orders in council and messages between the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State, and any of their officials and officials of the board of broadcast governors in connection with the order of December 31, 1963 and subsequent orders prohibiting until further notice the issuance of licences to applicants for the construction of CATV transmission towers and other appurtenances.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if before you put this motion I could just say a word which might make that unnecessary. There is no correspondence other than two letters, one dated December 31, 1963 from the Secretary of State to the chairman of the board of broadcast governors enclosing a copy of the statement of December 31, 1963 and asking the board of broadcast governors to consider the problem and make a report to the government, and the other dated March 9 accompanying the B.B.G.-D.O.T. recommendations, which was addressed jointly to myself as Minister of Transport and to the Secretary of State.
As hon. members know, correspondence between a minister of the crown and a body such as the board of broadcast governors has been considered privileged by successive governments, and therefore not subject to production. While we in the government would not like the motion to pass, which might be regarded as a precedent, the government in this particular case has no objection whatever to tabling these particular letters on its own
Inquiries of the Ministry responsibility. I would be glad to do that if the hon. gentleman would agree not to press his motion.


Mr. Souiham:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we are approaching the end of this portion of the session and answers have been given to certain questions connected with applications that are being sent out for social insurance numbers, I would ask the minister this question. Were these forms sent out not only to persons listed as being eligible for unemployment insurance but to others as well? If so, under what authority were they sent to the others? Second, what is the obligation to fill out this application form for those who are not listed as being eligible for unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries in respect to the factual aspect of the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. The obligation to register, or to apply for a social insurance number, applies to persons in insurable occupations normally covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is no obligation to register on the part of any other citizen. We are asking other citizens to register voluntarily and to acquire a social insurance number for further purposes, especially the proposed Canada pension plan.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as sending out these forms to those who are not subject to unemployment insurance is concerned, it is simply anticipating the passage of the bill establishing the Canada pension plan; is that the position? How many were sent out-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to other than those actually contemplated as in prospective receipt of unemployment insurance?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to check on the number of applications that have been sent out. My information at this stage is that applications have been forwarded to employers, but I will be glad to make a further check. I will simply

Inquiries of the Ministry reiterate what I have stated, that the obligation derives from the authority of the Unemployment Insurance Act for the insurable population. Others are invited to register voluntarily so that this numbering system will be available for a proposed Canada pension plan, and in accord with one of the recommendations of the Glassco commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago there was an interruption that I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. It was "Sit down". I wish the hon. gentleman would identify himself, because apparently he is not house-broken yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. If there are persons who may wish to apply voluntarily for these social insurance numbers but to whom forms have not been sent, can they get them from somewhere or make application for them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; these persons, as I understand it, will be invited to come to the national employment service offices and fill out these forms. I will be glad, however, to make further inquiries and possibly give more detailed answers to all these questions tomorrow.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Labour advise the house, to clear up this situation, whether the government is going to give everybody in Canada a registration number, or only those eligible for unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, our desire is to include all the employed population especially, at this stage; all persons who might be eligible for social insurance programs, including unemployment insurance and the proposed Canada pension plan. That is our objective, in order to have an appropriate system for social benefit purposes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Social credit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But at present we have no authority to register persons other than the insurable population, unless these persons whom we are inviting come forward voluntarily to secure these application forms.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can assure the house that no copies of the white paper

have been made available to other persons outside his department before being tabled in this house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, none has been made available to anyone who is not a member of the ministry of the government of Canada, or those officials in the department who are entitled to have access to it.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question. Is the minister going to issue his white paper tomorrow, and will it contain any items not already reported in the press?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. In this connection is the minister able to advise the house whether a certain story in this afternoon's Ottawa Citizen is speculative or founded on information obtained by direct access to the report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this paper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The story identifies the document as being 30 pages in length. It speaks of integration of the services; it speaks of five years' financial budgeting, and many other items which have appeared in previous stories. I am now asking the minister whether he is advising the house that no one outside of those persons he has now mentioned has had access, either verbally or visually, to the contents of this report.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly to my knowledge no one has had access to it who was not entitled to such access, and I think this is all I have responsibility for. As far as people talking is concerned, it is very difficult to control this.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. May we obtain an assurance from the minister that he will inquire into the security coverage of this white paper to see that there have been no unauthorized leaks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will certainly check that, Mr. Speaker, but the press have come to recognize that the policy of the Department of National Defence is now rational, and on that basis they are able to make some speculative guesses which may or may not prove accurate.


APPREHENSION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARMOURIES THEFTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-KenS):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. Is

the minister now in a position to make a statement to the house on the progress, or lack of it, in connection with the apprehension of those responsible for the thefts from armouries in Quebec?


Guy Favreau: should like to report on progress, and I could, if my duties allowed me to do so. I would not be in a position to report on any lack of progress. But I think my answer must be the same as before. It would not be in the public interest for me to report to the house at this time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, further to the answer that has just been given by the Minister of Justice, can he tell us now whether there have been any arrests in this connection?


Guy Favreau: Up to date, not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


LUCKNOW, ONT    REQUEST FOR RETURN OF ARMS TO HIGH SCHOOL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house when the small arms and ammunition removed from the Lucknow district high school will be returned to the cadet corps so that they may resume their training for the defence of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that is a question for the order paper.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask
the Minister of Transport whether he intends to leave the community antenna question up in the air during the recess, or does he intend to bring it down to the ground?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as well as the rest of the house, will recognize that this is not a question which I could settle by myself. As the Secretary of State pointed out the other day, the report was presented to the government last week and considered by the government briefly at that time, being made public the same day. Through me the government has received a verbal request, and may already have received a written request, from the president of the national community antenna television association of
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada that that association should be permitted to make representations to the government before the government makes any final decision on policy. Therefore I see no prospect of any decision being reached until after the Easter recess, and I should like to emphasize that that is the request of the organization of the people engaged in this activity.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Is the minister going to grant the request of the CATV?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the
formal request is being made to the Prime Minister, and knowing how this government behaves I am quite sure it will be granted.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a request from the New Brunswick government, the potato producers association of Carleton-Victoria and zone L, or any other reliable producer or dealer, to send a representative from the agricultural stabilization board to meet with the potato producers association directors to look into the present potato disposal problem in New Brunswick?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harry William Hays: I am very pleased to be back in the house, Mr. Speaker, and I want my good friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to know that I also missed him. In answering the question asked, representations along the lines outlined by the hon. member have not been received. However, I can assure him that should such representations be made I would be pleased to give them every consideration. The agricultural stabilization board has the matter of potato prices under close study, and I am pleased to be able to inform the house that potato prices have shown a marked upward trend in the last few days, with yesterday's unofficial New Brunswick quotations ranging between $1.75 to $1.85 per barrel, with some points reporting as high as $2 per barrel.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask a supplementary of the minister. Does he see any particular reason why a request of this nature would not be complied with?


Harry William Hays: I would be very pleased to meet them and discuss their problems.

Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  REQUEST FOR LARGER SHARE OF REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I intended to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, but in his absence, I will ask the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State to answer. Has the government received a communication from the Quebec premier repeating the demands he made last year, when he asked the federal government for a larger share of the tax revenue in Canada?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring this question to the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received a protest from the premier of Newfoundland on the grounds that the hon. gentleman's announcement of the withdrawal of the R.C.A.F. and R.C.N. establishments at Torbay and Fort Pepperrell constitutes a violation of term 44 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada whereby Canada guaranteed to provide defence forces in the province?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Did the hon. gentleman say "from the premier of Newfoundland"? No, not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompfion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Guay:: That ought to be something.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice, not to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay).
Since Judge Wagner, in his report concerning an alleged fraudulent bankruptcy, has recommended that charges of perjury and other charges be laid against Judge Adrien Meunier, of the Quebec superior court, can the minister tell the house if he

intends to take immediate action to suspend Judge Meunier until the case is settled?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the last part of the question, I must tell the hon. member that my jurisdiction, for the time being, does not extend that far.
As for the first part of the question, I must say that until now I have been kept informed of Judge Wagner's decision. I also know that the matter has been referred to the attorney general of the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is my duty to bring to the attention of the hon. member citation 152 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph 4, and with the permission of the house I will read it:
(4) All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attack and censure, have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order. Members have even been interrupted in committees of the whole by the chairman when they have cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding. The proper course for persons who feel called upon to attack the conduct of a judge is to proceed by way of a petition in which all the allegations are specifically stated so that the person accused may have full opportunity to answer the charges presented against him.
In the circumstances may I suggest to the hon. member that he desist.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, when I put a question to the Minister of Justice a moment ago you rightly ruled that a member of the house could not attack a judge. But I did not lodge any accusation against Judge Meunier; I only made a reference to an official report published and issued by Judge Wagner of Montreal. And that is why I asked the Minister of Justice whether he intended to suspend Judge Meunier in the light of that official report issued by another judge of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not refer to this citation before but it is a further citation in Beauchesne. Citation 149 reads in part as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35 it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending;-

(j) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts, unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion.
There may be other references but on short notice I have not been able to go further than that. In the circumstances I still maintain, and I am of the opinion, that the matter should not be discussed at this time.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.  INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether, during those quiet and ruminative moments which occur when one is on the road, he has come to a favourable conclusion about the grain elevator at Prince Rupert?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I still have this under consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of press references in this connection I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government or the Canadian seaway authority have made the extraordinary suggestion that the tolls on the St. Lawrence waterway should be increased? Has this been brought to the attention of the United States, and what has been the reaction thereto?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows, since he was in parliament when the St. Lawrence seaway legislation was passed, there is provision for a review of the tolls at stated intervals in order to comply with the agreement with the United States and the legislation passed by this parliament. At the present moment discussions are going on with the United States authorities in connection with this matter and I hope tomorrow to be in a position to make a brief statement in the house regarding them.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman and I would ask him, at the same time, whether the government is now giving consideration to withdrawing the Welland canal tolls which it imposed shortly after it took office.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has forgotten that on a certain somewhat notorious occasion the tolls were suddenly taken off the Welland canal and, up to now, they have not been put back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I ask the hon. gentleman whether it is not a fact that the government is determined to restore them and is just waiting for the opening of the season in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. That is not quite an accurate statement. I think it will be better if I were to make a statement tomorrow, with all its implications carefully considered, because I do not wish to enter into any contempt of parliament, about which the right hon. gentleman is so sensitive.



CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FERRY FOR P.E.I. SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether construction has yet begun of the additional ferry planned for the C.N.R.-operated service to Prince Edward Island.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without checking with the officials of my department, since I did not have notice of the hon. gentleman's question, I cannot answer it, but I will be glad to make an inquiry.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON UNECONOMIC BRANCH LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister be prepared to inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to implement the recommendation of the MacPherson royal commission report to abandon uneconomic railway lines or is it the intention of the government instead to set up a railway rationalization fund to subsidize these uneconomic lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
with his usual courtesy gave me notice of his question. I may say, as I indicated yesterday in reply to an intervention by the hon. member for Marquette, that it is the intention of the government later in the session to put a notice on the order paper similar to that which was put on the order paper by the President of the Privy Council on

Inquiries of the Ministry December 6 when he occupied the position I now occupy. That notice will be found in Votes and Proceedings and on the order paper after that date. I do not think I should take the time of the house to read it now but it does refer to the establishment of a branch line rationalization authority and a branch line rationalization fund.
The implication is very clear, I think, that there is no thought of any sudden or precipitate rail abandonment, and that what was contemplated by the notice which was given in the house and what is still the proposal of the government is to introduce legislation at this session which we unfortunately did not have the time to deal with at the last session.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I have now looked at the clipping which the hon. member for Marquette was kind enough to mention yesterday and which quoted Mr. Boss Thatcher. I read this motion to Mr. Ross Thatcher over the telephone and it seems to me, considering that it was read to him over the telephone, that he gave a very accurate account of it in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Thatcher was quoted as having a conversation with the minister over the telephone perhaps the minister might tell us what Mr. Thatcher's reaction was when the hon. gentleman pointed out this clipping and its contents to him, so that the Saskatchewan people will have the full story.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I drew to Mr. Thatcher's attention the motion that my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council, had put on the order paper at the last session of parliament he was very grateful for the clarification of the policy of the government, and I believe that will be the view of all those who feel that the first purpose of the railways is to serve the communities they serve, and that their balance sheets must be put in second place.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I congratulate the minister on that declaration of policy.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that section 94(a) of the B.N.A. Act provides that-

-the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Could the minister say whether he took into consideration the constitutional aspects of Bill C-75 concerning a general old age pension plan, and more particularly section 3, paragraph 1 of the said bill?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. He said yes, so I understand he has considered the bill. Now, could he tell us whether the project meets the constitutional requirements under the B.N.A. Act?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the bill is introduced by the government, after evidently consulting the Minister of Justice, allows me to answer yes also, to the second question of the hon. member.



SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF QUEBEC PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: My
question was for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but since she has just left perhaps the Minister of Transport could deal with the question. I should like to ask him if the government has approached the premier of Quebec with a view to having him withdraw the provincial pension plan in order to make the Canada pension plan truly national?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if this kind of question, dealing with high policy, is the type of question envisaged under the rules set out for questions at this time?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister look into the possibility of having seating made available at Malton airport in the room where people coming home from abroad and others entering the country are often required to wait long periods for baggage and customs formalities? Such provision would be especially appreciated by older people.

14S3


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to draw that matter to the attention of the department.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: My question will be addressed to the Minister of National Defence or to the associate minister, according to their jurisdiction. It is based on a radio announcement to the effect that Colonel Grey of Camp Petawawa has not yet been informed that the changing of the guard ceremony will be performed on parliament hill this summer. Will visitors to the national capital again have the opportunity to view this outstanding ceremony during the summer months?


Mr. Speaker:: May I respectfully suggest that the order paper is the proper place for that question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to ask the Secretary of State a question about the controversial television program scheduled for this evening-the one at 9.30, not 8.30. Does the hon. gentleman know whether any Canadian churchmen have complained of the fact that the hockey broadcast pre-empted the time originally scheduled on Sunday night for the performance of this 'Easter play?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guysborough):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister recently received any request or representations concerning possible assistance to fishermen in eastern Nova Scotia who sustained severe storm damages last December? If so, what has been the response?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REPORTED U.K. PROPOSALS RESPECTING PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, as I have stated previously in the house, it is not proper procedure to follow to give details of negotiations while negotiations are taking place. As the house has already been informed, the initial phase involving negotiations with the United States was completed on February 5. Last week preliminary discussions took place with representatives of the Norwegian government. Next Thursday, April 2-a week from tomorrow- we expect to meet with a delegation from Portugal. On April 7 and 8 negotiations will take place with representatives from the government of France. Arrangements are being made with other countries interested to proceed with negotiations at the earliest possible date.']
Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister; I believe he is the Minister of Transport. Will the Acting Prime Minister state whether Canada is now considering abandonning certain commonwealth tariff preferences-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This is an important question and I think I should be heard out.
-whether Canada is now considering abandoning certain commonwealth tariff preferences which she now enjoys in relation to certain commonwealth developing countries in particular in order to stimulate trade in certain non-commonwealth developing countries, as implied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his address yesterday at the United Nations conference on trade and development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have some doubt whether I have any title to answer this question, because the Prime Minister is in Ottawa and I am not the acting prime minister. However, I do happen to be the senior minister in the house.
Though, of course, a very important question, this does not appear to me to be the kind of question which is urgent within the rules that apply to questions asked on the orders of the day, because it obviously deals with a most complicated subject on which the government is certainly not going to do anything between today and tomorrow.
I think, moreover, that the Prime Minister's answer to almost exactly the same question yesterday, to the effect that we should await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and allow him to report, was very good advice to the house and I repeat it.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether the United States and the other countries with which he has been discussing the implementation of a 12 mile fisheries limit have indicated that they will accept with good grace such a declaration by Canada. If that is not the

Inquiries of the Ministry case will he indicate to us what progress he has been making in the discussions he has been carrying on?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated previously in the house, it is not proper procedure to follow to give details of negotiations while negotiations are taking place. As the house has already been informed, the initial phase involving negotiations with the United States was completed on February 5. Last week preliminary discussions took place with representatives of the Norwegian government. Next Thursday, April 2-a week from tomorrow- we expect to meet with a delegation from Portugal. On April 7 and 8 negotiations will take place with representatives from the government of France. Arrangements are being made with other countries interested to proceed with negotiations at the earliest possible date.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Sfarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the report from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that out of 35,000 applications for the $500 bonus for winter construction only 6,000 have qualified so far, and since the date for expiry of the bonus is Tuesday, March 31, is the minister prepared to make an announcement extending the date for a further period of 30 days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question is at present under consideration and I hope to be able to say something about it one way or another tomorrow.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting prime minister or the junior-senior minister, or whatever he may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The member for Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It has to do with the situation existing in the United Nations. In view of India's support in principle of the nuclear umbrella disarmament proposal by which nuclear weapons would be limited to the

United States and Russia, would the minister give an indication of Canada's stand on this very important matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I feel I am far too junior a minister to express an opinion on so important a subject without at least prior consultation with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will draw the matter to the Prime Minister's attention.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Minister of Labour but I have been so long getting the floor that he has left. However, I will direct it to the Minister of Transport, and I hope it will not further inflame his seniority feelings. With respect to the brief presented by the shipyard and marine workers this morning to the cabinet concerning a merchant marine, will the minister give every assurance that the brief will be given immediate attention? When can we expect legislation in regard thereto and will the minister also make a general statement about this important matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that a most excellently prepared brief was presented to about one third of the members of the cabinet by the representatives of the shipyard workers and they were given the assurance by me, by the Minister of Labour who was chairman of the meeting, and by the Associate Minister of National Defence, who has a great interest in the subject of shipbuilding, and by the minister of northern affairs that this matter would receive the most careful and the most urgent consideration. Until that consideration has been given it would be premature for me to indicate what its result would be.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the statement that the minister has made on this matter of a merchant marine and its long term implications. Will the minister give every assurance that the immediate situation will be dealt with, that is that the lay-offs taking place in the various shipyards will be alleviated by the acceleration of the program in his department and in the Department of National Defence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members know that layoffs anywhere in the country for any reason are of great concern

to the government, and the Minister of Labour is working night and day to see that other work is available in all these cases.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister step up the construction program in his own department as promised a short time ago in the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do everything I can.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question?
As his predecessor favoured the establishment of provincial lotteries, would the minister tell us if the matter has been put on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference which will take place next week, as Mr. Lesage did express the wish to discuss the point?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this question should normally be directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, and I shall be happy to communicate it to him.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My question was directed to the Minister of Justice, as he is responsible for administrating the Criminal Code. My question was this:
Does the Minister of Justice intend to discuss the project with the provincial authorities of Quebec during the next federal-provincial conference?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, until the federal-provincial conference starts, every question which might, or might not, be put on the agenda is obviously a matter of government policy.


Georges-J. Valade: Will it be put on the agenda? [Later;]


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order. I should like to refer Your Honour to citation 178, page 152 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible. Within these lines an explanation can be sought regarding the intentions of the government, but not an expression of opinion upon matters of policy.
It is my duty, sir, to ask this question of the minister because the federal-provincial conference will be held next week and the
Inquiries of the Ministry people of Quebec are interested in this question. Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to introduce at that conference the question of provincial lotteries, which has been dominant for many years and which was promised by the Liberal party at the last election?


Guy Favreau: I must answer again that it is not within the ambit of responsibility of the Minister of Justice to put questions to the federal-provincial conference. I would not think it in order therefore for me to answer that question.


Georges-J. Valade: I do not accept this answer.



REQUEST FOR GRANT TO BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughy (Kamloops):: had a question also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am sorry she has left the chamber. Perhaps the Minister of Transport will see that this question is passed on to her. It is an urgent question, sir.
Has the very urgent and respectful request of the Canadian basketball association for $15,000 in financial aid, addressed to the minister some months ago and which I understand has gone without any acknowledgement, been passed on to the national fitness council? This is an urgent matter because the money is needed for financing the four national basketball championships.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will pass the ball on to the minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: In view of the answer given by the Minister of Transport a few minutes ago I want to assert my right as a member of this house to ask a question on high policy. Did the Minister of National Defence, before he published the white paper and distributed it to the press, receive from NATO the summary review of its policy in respect of the demands of NATO for conventional and nuclear arms?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not just sure, Mr. Speaker, because of the vagueness of the question, what my hon. friend has in mind. Does he mean the summary which was asked for last

Inquiries oj the Ministry May at the ministerial meeting? It has not been received as yet. Is that the purport of the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is exactly it. The minister, I thought, was going to incorporate in his white paper his views with regard to NATO's review of its policies.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was certainly hopeful that would be the case, but that report is not yet available and we have had to go ahead with our white paper. We have tried to the maximum extent practicable to accommodate the policies set out in the white paper to the future requirements of NATO.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. According to a newscast today at noon, as of the end of January there were over 500,000 Canadians drawing unemployment insurance benefits. I should like to ask the minister what he has in mind or what he plans to do to correct this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the hon. gentleman bringing this matter to my attention, and in returning the favour I would remind him that the number of claimants this year, in comparison with last year, has dropped by approximately 115,000.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the maritimes?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I asked the minister what he had in mind to procure some work for these 500,000 Canadians who want to work but who cannot work because the minister is not doing his job?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us whether his department compiles also statistics on the number of unemployed not receiving unemployment insurance benefits? If so, can he tell us what the number is?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister will take this as notice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If this was the first time the question was put to the Minister of Labour, it would be quite proper to give him notice. But since I personally asked the question one month 

ago, 15 days ago and at least three times since the beginning of the session, I think the minister has had notice of the question and should perhaps answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ros-thern.


Gilles Grégoire: No answer?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there still remain half a million people unemployed has the minister, the department or the government any new policy over and above what has already been announced to take care of the situation that faces these unemployed people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first point to be made in reply to that question is that the estimated number of unemployed is considerably below the figure mentioned by my hon. friend. The second point is that this February will have the best employment situation that we have had since the last Liberal year in 1957. We intend to continue the policies which have had such a substantial impact on the employment prospects in this country.


Mr. Graffiey:: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is developing into a debate, and I do not think the matter is pressing.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I would like to direct it to the Minister of Industry. What progress is being made in the talks with the government of France in regard to their purchase of Canadian uranium?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked some time ago and it was pointed out, I think by the Prime Minister, that the sale of uranium to France would be subject to safeguards. To the present moment there has been no agreement with France on the application of safeguards.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
20e. Administration of the Immigration Act, $133,800.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall this item carry?


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) on a matter which really deserves his attention.
We know that a steel complex is slated to be built in the Nicolet region, that is in the parish of Becancour, where an Indian reserve is located. A newspaperman of Three Rivers mentioned in the local paper Le Nouvelliste that it was one of the oldest Indian reserves in Canada.
During the next few minutes, I would like to read for the benefit of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few lines from that article written by Benoit Roy, a newspaperman of Three Rivers. It says:
What will the federal authorities do concerning the development Becancour will experience once the steel mill is established? There was some talk for a while of selling the reserve and moving the families elsewhere. Will that project come up again or will other Indians be brought back on the Becancour reserve?
That is a question the Indians of that reserve are now asking themselves.
The article goes on:
The site of the present reserve is said to be quite rich from an archeological standpoint. According to one of its occupants, arrow-heads, hatchet blades, lead bullets, etc., can be found quite near the surface.
We have even been assured that, very close to the cross and buried some six feet deep, there are three cannons dating back to the French regime, one made of cast iron and two of copper, mounted on wheels. Those cannons would have been used during the wars between the Indian tribes, and especially by the French settlers who had to protect many times to destroy that French settlement in themselves against raids by the Iroquois who tried those heroic times of French civilization.
I am asking the minister to have his department make an investigation and, if need be, recommend to the historic sites and monuments board of Canada to study the particular aspect of that Indian reserve.
Should that future steel complex ever need that land, all those factors should be. taken in consideration to prevent the disappearance of an historic site, as called by that newspaperman of Three Rivers, which is one of the most ancient Indian reserves in Canada and which should be allowed to preserve its historic character.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Chairman, I have just two questions for the minister. I think everybody is pleased the minister is going to Hong Kong in the near future, and I would like to ask when he is going? Further, during his stay there will he try to speed up the almost hopeless delay in procedure that applicants 20220-93
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration have to go through in order to get to this country? I understand some applications are not processed until 12 or 14 months after they have been received. This is an unconscionable thing and I hope the minister will try to deal with this problem when he is in Hong Kong.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, I am leaving for Hong Kong tomorrow morning, and the purpose of my trip is to check on the administrative problems of immigration services. When I come back, I will be glad to report on my mission.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of our discussion I would like to touch very briefly on a few matters I raised during the debate on the speech from the throne. I should also like to underline some personal opinions. I note with a great deal of pleasure, after reading a recent speech made by the minister, that he agrees with me that one of the basic problems today in this nation of ours is that we really need more people. I know that some countries-not necessarily in the western world-have a real overpopulation problem. I personally think that at this stage of our national development in Canada one of the problems we are faced with, relating to what I call a viable economy, is the fact that we are underpopulated.
This being the situation-and I feel that the minister alluded, very sensibly, to this fact in a recent speech-I then ask some basic questions. What is the government's immigration policy? Are they simply going to depend on what I call the natural increase of population from the birth rate to solve this problem that I have mentioned; or are they actually going to carry out a positive immigration policy? I ask another question. Why, in the last few months, has a country like Australia outstripped Canada in relation to new citizens landing on her soil? What are we doing in terms of an assisted passage program to encourage people to come to Canada? I ask the minister another basic question. Does he feel that at this stage of our economic development a real, positive immigration policy would conflict with the employment position of Canadians? I ask another basic question: Has the minister's department fixed a target for the number of immigrants they want to come to Canada within the next 12 months, or any period? Is there a target established, so to speak?
I know these are very basic questions that I am asking, compared with some of the detailed questions that are often asked in relation to the minister's portfolio; but it is a subject that interests me very, very much. As I said before, I think a basic problem
1468	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration today in Canada relates to the fact that we are an underpopulated country, and I think the minister has an extremely interesting challenge before him in this regard. I hope he can answer, in general outline, some of the questions that I have put to him.


Mr, Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, while the regular estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration come before the house for discussion, I shall have an opportunity to make an over-all statement on the immigration policy to be carried out by the department.
However, to reply more specifically to the question asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), I may say that in accordance with the announcement I made, the immigration policy of the department will be changed.
Nevertheless, I might state briefly what happened in that field. In the past, we had a considerable number of applications from European immigrants wishing to come to Canada, and that raised many problems. I would call that the post-war period which was one of passivity, where we only had to make a selection among the immigrants asking us to come here. As a matter of fact, our problems, at that time, were different from the ones facing us now. We have reached the point where the needs of the country, as regards immigration, are so acute that our immigration policy must be revised and made more positive. We must also endeavour to bring here better qualified immigrants. We must also improve our facilities abroad, because it would be no use hiding the fact that these last few years, they have been in very poor shape. I feel that if we want qualified immigrants, we must have not only a well representative personnel but also well located facilities.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said a while ago that Australia had been very successful in its immigration policy, because of the fact that it insisted very much on facilities set up in various countries, especially in Europe.
So I think, within a few months, we will have developed a new policy that we will announce to the house and to the whole country. I do not believe that this can come into conflict, as previously stated, with the other objectives of the government, especially full employment in this country. As I have said many times, it is not a large number of immigrants that we need but rather people with initiative, who are likely to create new jobs, so that this may increase employment instead of decreasing it.


This means that if an expert comes here to Canada and fills a vacant position, three or four persons will be employed who, otherwise, would be jobless, because of the shortage of these experts on the labour market.
We have no specific objective as to the number of immigrants that we want to bring to this country, but we want beforehand to improve services and conditions to receive them. As for mentioning a number, whether there are 150,000, 200,000 or 250,000, I believe that our country is waiting for a large number of them to make progress.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether, following upon what the minister has just said, I might pose a question or two to him. I refer to what I understand are two, or perhaps three, agreements between Canada and other countries to restrict the number of people who may emigrate to Canada from those countries; or, in effect, to place a quota or numerical ceiling upon the number of people who may come to Canada from those other countries. I have been given to understand that there is such an agreement between Canada and the government of India. In fact, I posed a written question without, while so doing, realizing that today we might have an opportunity to debate it in the house. I understand that as a part of this agreement between Canada and India there is a limit of 300 people in any one calendar year who may come to Canada and this number is divided into 150 being relatives of people already here and 150 being non-sponsored.
I wonder whether the minister could tell us if this is so, and whether there are agreements of that sort which restrict, or place a ceiling or quota, on the number of emigrants that may also come from Pakistan or Ceylon, because I understand these two countries are also involved. In addition, will the minister tell us what steps will be taken, if any, to approach the governments of these other countries to see whether we can agree to cancel such agreements containing these restrictive covenants. I ask this because I am sure, especially in view of what the minister said in reply to the comments of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and in view of the fact that it is desirous, as the minister said, to attract as many people as possible to Canada in order to put us in a strong and virile position economically, that these agreements which are restrictive in nature are contrary to that sort of policy. I would certainly like to hear the government's views with respect to these agreements and what steps will be taken to eliminate them.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) to revise the agreements is an excellent one, because it so happens that there is, in the case of India, an agreement between our government and that of India.
As for the possibility of bringing in immigrants from a country such as India, over an annual period, I am of the opinion that existing agreements with other countries ought to be revised, for it is part of our over-all policy to examine the possibility of allowing immigration from those countries to be increased. That applies not only to European countries, but also to those of the Middle East, Asia and India.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister first of all for his kind remarks on this suggestion. Second, I should like to ask him whether to date formal representations have been made to these other countries, or whether this is something this minister anticipates will occur in the future?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is the policy of the government to try and increase the number of agreements which we have with these countries, although we may revise some of the agreements which we do have. In cases where we do have agreements we may try to increase the number of immigrants we receive from those countries in addition to the quota which has been established; but it is not the regular policy of the government to reach agreements with each country and to fix a quota. We prefer to have an open policy in those countries where this is possible.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I did not phrase the question correctly because the answer the minister has given bears no relationship to what I asked. I did not ask the minister whether it was his policy to approach other countries to establish quotas or anything of that sort. I asked the minister whether his government has already been in touch with, for argument's sake, the government of India, to deal specifically with that country, in order to have the present agreement which restricts the number of immigrants from that country to Canada rescinded. Has that already happened?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of such contact with that government.


Frank Howard: Then may I ask whether this will be done.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: My first answer was that I will be very glad to revise any agreement we have with foreign countries.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, since in the past, I have put a few questions to the minister 20220-934
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration but without ever getting an answer, I hope to have more luck today.
If I remember rightly, I think that the authorities in my province stated at one time that even a provincial government could deal with immigration problems, that is to go abroad and bring immigrants to Quebec. Could the minister tell us whether agreements on that matter have been concluded between provincial and federal authorities? Could the minister explain what is the degree of authority or jurisdiction of the two governments involved in this matter?
If a provincial government promotes a certain type of immigration, will it be in cooperation with the federal government, or will both governments compete with each other?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I think that the rights of the federal government in the field of immigration are very well defined. The co-operation we seek in this matter concerns the classification of immigrants.
I do not believe the provinces have the right, the authority nor the administrative machinery required to compete with federal immigration offices in the various countries of the world. On the other hand, we would be most pleased if the provinces would advertise abroad in that connection, and set up employment offices as soon as possible, in order to help us in getting those people settled here, in every province of the country.
If all the Canadian provinces were ready to do this twofold effort and to advertise more abroad in order to attract immigrants, and if they would help us in getting immigrants settled in this country, I feel that our immigration policy would be much more interesting.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question regarding immigrants from behind the iron curtain. Are the policies of his department the same for immigrants from other countries I should also like to know what is the government's policy towards people from behind the iron curtain who emigrate without the permission of their country or origin-in other words, people who escape. I understand escapes have been going on for many years. Are there different policies or regulations which apply to these people, or are the regulations the same, even though they may not have a passport or any recommendation from their church? I have received many letters from people in my constituency who have been confronted with such a problem; they have friends or relatives who cannot come to Canada but must remain in Europe. I just want to know whether different
1470	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration rules and regulations apply to this class of person.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, in many countries behind the iron curtain, we do not have the required facilities to have the would-be immigrants undergo the necessary examinations.
I hope to be able to get in touch, in the near future, with the authorities in countries behind the iron curtain so as to find out to what extent such examinations could be made easy for those relatives of Canadians who live in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, etc. and who wish to immigrate to this country.
As regards the second point, that is people born in countries behind the iron curtain and living now in other European countries, and who wish to settle in Canada, regulations specify, as hon. members know, that these people must live two years in the same country to be entitled to undergo examinations that would permit them to come to Canada.
So far, latitude was allowed the minister to permit the admission of certain immigrants who were undergoing an examination in a Canadian office here. I can assure you that up to now, I have been very very broadminded in carrying out the rules, in view of the discretion that I was allowed, and chiefly on account of the fact that in some instances it was impossible for the immigrants to go back to their country and therefore, I had to have them undergo the examination in this country.


Mr. Bigg:: There are a few points I want to bring up under these estimates concerning our own native people of Canada. It has been suggested by some that perhaps these native people require their own member of parliament, something like they had in England for the universities, but because they have been neglected for many years the Indians have lost faith in the ability of our parliamentary system to look after their rights. As I say, they have suggested at times that they do require direct representation here in Ottawa. I am sure that the appointment of Mr. Gladstone to the Senate did a great deal for the morale of the Indian people across Canada, who now feel they have some voice in their own affairs.
They are looking ahead, now. They have some hope. But it is certainly not enough, and I do not think this is the real answer. I do think it is the duty of members having Indian reserves in their constituencies-and I have some seven Indian reserves in my district-to bring these matters to the attention of parliament. First, and most important, we must make it clear, once and for all, that we


are playing ball with these people, that they are not being neglected. One of the most vital steps in this connection is the setting up as soon as possible of the Indian claims commission, and giving the Indians a direct connection with it and with the courts and other legal machinery in Canada, so that not only present claims but breaches of the treaty in the past may be looked into. I do not intend to discuss this matter at any length because it has already been brought to the attention of the committee. Anyway, it is a field in which the Indians are looking for some action.
I think the Indian people are essentially no different from any other people. They feel they are being treated as second-class citizens of some kind. Speaking from my own experience I can say they have been treated by the government as if they were children. They are not, in fact, children. Where the Indians have kept their self-respect, and been allowed to keep it, they have shown that in their own way they are very effective Canadian citizens indeed. I would point to the Caughnawaga Indians along the St. Lawrence river. These men are recognized in the United States as being the finest steel workers in America. In fact, they get better wages than the white men employed in this work, because of their greater skill.
In the western reserves, the Bloods and the Peigans in southern Alberta are well off financially. They have never been taken from their original habitat; they live on roughly the same ground as did their ancestors and they have turned successfully to the way of life nearest to that of their ancestors in the days of the buffalo. They are trying to go into ranching. Only recently a delegation came to Ottawa and offered to capitalize their ranches by purchasing breeding stock on a 50-50 basis. They came to the federal government with an offer to put up 50 per cent of the capital cost. Let us not turn this down. Here is a progressive tribe whose members are trying to do something for themselves. They are showing that they have not lost their old grit. Before the white men came they were a fine, upstanding race of people with a keen sense of democracy and a well thought out and stable religious life, all of which has been upset by our well-meaning interference. I suggest we should consult the Indian people and find out how they want to live; and when they come forward with such a manly proposition as supplying 50 per cent of the capital they require, I think we should almost write a blank cheque. For every dollar they put up we have got to meet them.
If they succeed, as they are succeeding in southern Alberta, I should like to ask your co-operation, Mr. Chairman, and the co-operation of this committee in seeing that the

less favoured tribes in my district who may want to do something along these lines should receive every encouragement. I do not expect the department to do all the work.
I do not expect the Indians to do all the work. I intend to make up a party of Indians from my district and take them this summer to visit their cousins on the Blood and Peigan reserves to see how this is working out-to see whether they cannot devote as much energy and courage to building up a venture of this sort. I know it will work. I know these people. I have worked with them, and they are no different, when given a chance, from any other Canadians. It is a question of morale. It is also a question of common sense. We must try to give these people jobs in this country which are as close to their instincts and to their culture as we can. We hear a great deal about biculturalism. Both the English and the French in Canada are proud of their cultures, and there is no doubt at all that the red man is proud of his. He will fit into the Canadian pattern of culture as far as he himself wants to fit in. At one time the white people of this country hoped that the natives would die out. They are not dying out; they are multiplying quite rapidly. This will present an increasing challenge if we do not take steps to meet it and give these people the opportunities which I think they should have.
As a lesser suggestion I think we should improve their morale by paying them their treaty money in cash, as they have requested on many occasions. I suggest we pay them in special money. I suggest we should provide every year special silver dollars honouring the various tribes in the order in which they signed the treaty, and that we pay these senior citizens of ours in Canada in silver money struck especially to honour their people. The details could easily be worked out and I shall not take up the time of the committee in pursuing this matter further, now. But the feeling of the Indians, when they signed this treaty originally, was that they were to be paid in cash in the Queen's money and I believe we could combine the keeping of this part of the treaty with a gesture in honour of those fine Indian tribes who signed it and who have kept their side of the bargain.
Now I wish to turn for a few moments to the subject of old people's homes. In Alberta, we have old folks homes, but there are none for Indians and I suggest we might work out some scheme, in co-operation with the provinces, in order that our aged Indians might also have the benefit of old folks homes. Perhaps they would not require exactly the same type of architecture as we ourselves find suitable. Perhaps provision should be made
25, 1984	1471
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for a different type of communal living. But aged Indians who are in receipt of old age pensions might well make the same deal for living in these old folks homes as do our own senior citizens, and they could be looked after in these homes in the same way as we look after the white people. The Indian people have always looked after the aged of their own race. They honour their fathers and their mothers in the same way as we do. If hon. members of this committee came to my district and saw the slums in which the senior citizens of our senior people are living, they would be horrified. I could take them around to mud floored shacks and primitive log dwellings in which these older people are obliged to spend the declining years of their lives in poverty, living under conditions which it is hard to imagine until they have actually been witnessed.
I think we need to do more, too, to train the younger people to take advantage of the mechanical age in which we live. These Indian people are clever mechanics. I understand that if an Eskimo is given an outboard motor he scarcely requires any instruction in its working; he will pull it apart, see how it works and put it together again; he learns the mechanics of an outboard motor much faster indeed than does a white man, because it is essential to his way of life-he has to keep his canoe running so as to carry on his trapping. I am told by my former mates in the police that an Eskimo can beat our boys every time when it comes to mechanical things. So let us see they get the training they require. It is not good enough simply to set up schools where ordinary subjects are taught. We have to provide for the development of this natural mechanical aptitude and teach subjects which have practical application to the kind of life the students want to lead. They are still pioneers. They have the right to live in a pioneer country. I am sure that the undertaking to educate the Indians did not mean teaching them only reading, writing and arithmetic. We must enable them to receive the same training as we give to our own young people, to prepare them for the mechanical age in which we live.
Now I wish to change the subject radically and speak for a few moments about immigration.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I believe there is an understanding that the committee should proceed at this time to the consideration of interim supply. Is it agreed that vote 20e stand at this time and that we proceed to the discussion of interim supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item 20e stands.

Interim Supply



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Gordon moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $684,120,260.18, being the aggregate of:
(a)	Two-twelfths of the total of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional five-twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 20 of the said main estimates, $402,291.67:
(c)	an additional four-twelfths of the amount of atomic energy item 5 of the said main estimates, $416,666.67;
(d)	an additional three-twelfths of the amount of national research council item 10 of the said main estimates, $5,838,000.00;
(e)	an additional two-twelfths of the amount of fisheries item 15, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys item 25 and transport item 95, of the said main estimates, $6,661,116.67;
(f)	an additional one-twelfth of the amount of finance item 25, labour item 30, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 45, 50 and 60, national revenue item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 1, trade and commerce item 15, of the said main estimates, $12,203,766.67, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.


Mr. Nowlan:: I presume the minister is going to make the usual statement first.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill to be founded on the resolution is to finance the operations of the government for the periods noted and the usual authority will be asked to borrow up to $1 billion to provide for authorized payments out of the consolidated revenue fund through the issue of treasury bills, Canada savings bonds, marketable securities, etc. The proportions requested in the bill when it is presented are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to May 31, 1964.
In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills and the passing of the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a matter of great importance that this opportunity be taken to discuss fully in the house a serious question that has been simmering for many months and is now threatening to explode as the result of certain happenings in the last month or so. I am speaking now of the proposed transfer of the jurisdiction over and administration of the affairs of the Eskimo people of northern
[The Deputy Chairman.]
Quebec from the federal government to the government of the province of Quebec. I rise to make some comments and to offer some suggestions and I do so in an objective, sincere and non-partisan manner because this issue is at present very badly confused.
There is growing alarm among southern Canadians and I can assure the house that the Eskimo people of the north are becoming frightened and confused. I think it is important that someone who knows the Eskimo people clarify the record at this stage before the issue becomes clouded by religious and political emotionalism.
This matter has far reaching implications, containing as it does problems of federal-provincial relationships, constitutional questions and the rights of parliament itself but, most important, the fundamental right of a large group of Eskimo Canadian citizens to be, if you will, masters in their own igloos. I suggest that the way in which we approach this problem and ultimately resolve it, as we will, will be under close scrutiny in all parts of Canada and in many other nations of the world because Canada at last will have had to come face to face with a matter that has all the elements of the struggle of emerging people and groups for self-determination.
I regret very much that the Prime Minister is ill and absent from the house today and also that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are not here this afternoon because they are the ones who have been carrying on the negotiations respecting this matter with the government of the province of Quebec.
I do not intend to rehash the rather ragged events of some of the question periods on this very issue, except to say that at this point the House of Commons has been told certain things. We know for certain, and we have the Prime Minister's word for it, that the Eskimos are to be consulted before an agreement is signed. Ostensibly that consultation will be carried out through a federal-provincial commission. We know that for sure.
We have also been assured by the Prime Minister that any agreement the federal government signs will safeguard the language and the religion of the Eskimo people of new Quebec. But there are some things we do not know. We have not been told about them in the house and the people of Canada must know before we can proceed any further. We do not know yet whether parliament will have an opportunity to approve or reject any plan that is arrived at. We do not know whether the Eskimo people of new Quebec will have the opportunity to be consulted about the terms of the agreement and to be

represented at any such negotiations by independent counsel. We do not know for sure whether the Eskimo people of northern Quebec will be allowed to have a referendum. We do not know for sure whether similar negotiations will be conducted with regard to Eskimo people who live in other provinces of Canada.
Let me advise the house, in case hon. members do not know, that there are other provinces of Canada that have Eskimo people living in them. The obvious example is the province of Manitoba. There is a substantial Eskimo settlement at Churchill. We do not know what the implications of this move are for the administration of Indian affairs throughout Canada, not only in terms of every province of Canada but in those very communities in the north where Eskimo, Indian and white people have been, until now at least, living in harmony. I give as examples the communities of Great Whale River in new Quebec, Fort Churchill in Manitoba and Inu-vik in the Northwest Territories.
I have said there is growing alarm in southern Canada. One need only read the various newspaper editorials that have appeared on this very matter in recent weeks. I have in my hand a press report of a speech given by the Right Rev. E. S. Reed, Bishop of Ottawa. This is from the Ottawa Citizen for March 12, and I quote from part of the article because Bishop Reed is very concerned over what is happening to the Eskimo people:
Bishop Reed deprecated the fact that, apparently, the Quebec Eskimos jurisdictional problem has become "a highly charged political issue."
Bishop Reed posed these questions in his speech:
Will the good work begun, however, belatedly, by the northern affairs department, be continued and improved if jurisdiction is given to the Quebec government?
Will the missionaries, the trusted friends of the Eskimos, with no political axe to grind, be permitted to assist the Eskimos when their wishes are being consulted on the jurisdictional problem?
I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the Eskimo people are confused. I say this because in recent weeks I have had an opportunity of meeting and talking with the Eskimo people from northern Quebec. I can assure you, as a result of these person to person talks, that the Eskimo people are extremely alarmed about what is occurring between the federal and provincial governments. One of the Eskimo people from Fort Chimo, a man who is completely reliable, assured me that these frightened people will probably pack up and move away from Quebec mainland if this thing proceeds any further without their being allowed to participate in the discussion.
I say that there has been alarm in southern Canada as a result of some of the statements we have seen in the press, statements Mr. Chairman that are unbelievable in their colonial attitude toward the Eskimo people.
Interim Supply
I have in my hand a news report from the Montreal Gazette dated March 12. I should like to quote from the lead article entitled "Angry debate over Eskimos". I quote:
Resources minister Rene Levesque, who has pressed Ottawa hard to transfer administrative authority for the Eskimos to Quebec has flatly rejected any idea of a referendum on the grounds that the Eskimos have not reached the cultural stage where they are capable of rendering an opinion, and that a referendum would be accordingly "an abuse of the democratic process".
This statement was made by the resources minister of the province of Quebec. I want categorically to reject that statement; and that type of statement is not limited by any means to Mr. Levesque. I want to reject it for its unfathomable ignorance of the capacity and potentials of the Eskimo people in the Canadian north as I know them. I reject this kind of statement, further, for what it is. It is the worst type of hypocrisy. The Eskimos of northern Quebec have the provincial and federal franchise and have had for some time now. The hon. member for Saguenay receives a substantial vote from these Eskimo people of new Quebec in federal elections, and yet we have a Quebec minister saying that it would be an abuse of the democratic process to allow these Eskimo people from the Canadian north to have a say in their own affairs. This kind of statement, Mr. Chairman, is dangerously irresponsible. Furthermore, it is dangerous in the implication it has for other minority and racial groups in Quebec. I, for one, am not prepared to accept the Levesque-


Gilles Grégoire: Why don't you give them the right to vote, then?


Mr. Dinsdale:: They have; we gave it to them.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I would suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that he refer to the Nielsen bill of 1962, and he can find the same old arguments about people not being allowed to vote. I would suggest to Mr. Levesque, and all others who tend to think like him, that if they want to find people who are not ready to vote they do not have to go that far north in the province of Quebec.
At any rate, this is my attitude. This is the kind of statement we get from one of the negotiating ministers and it calls into question the whole matter of whether or not people with ideas such as these should be entrusted with the affairs of the Eskimo people. I will refer to this briefly in a moment, but for the time being I want to discuss the matter of provincial responsibility for Eskimo and Indian affairs. Let this be understood clearly. The objective that was clearly enunciated by the minister of northern affairs is one which

Interim Supply
we, as a party, support. Let that be understood. There has never been any doubt about where the Conservative party stood on this matter. The objective of having provincial governments assume responsibility for Eskimo and Indian affairs is one that we support. In fact, it is the only way, we believe, you can build a nation. However, the method by which this is achieved is something that causes us alarm.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice, who I see has resumed his seat, that whatever methods are followed in this transfer they must guarantee that the rights of parliament will be respected and that the rights of the Eskimo people to be consulted will be safeguarded. A few days ago in this house the Prime Minister said that no one needed to tell him about his responsibilties. With due respect and deference to our Prime Minister, I suggest there are many things he does need to be told about the Eskimo people. Furthermore, I suggest to him that I am quite competent in this field to tell him a few things that he might not know about the Eskimo people.
I have said that there are constitutional difficulties involved here because a number of these matters are assigned by the British North America Act to federal and provincial jurisdictions. I do not intend to refer to these in any detail. There is a constitution problem involved as a result of the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 which says in the pertinent section, section 2 paragraph (e):
That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the government of Canada subject to the control of parliament.
Certainly the supreme court decision of 1939, which is the basis upon which these negotiations are being conducted between the Minister of Justice and the Quebec government, was to the effect that for the purposes of the British North America Act Eskimos are considered to be Indians. This is surely the most serious part of the current negotiations. The minister, as he indicated in the house, proposes to transfer Eskimo affairs in Quebec from the federal government, and is he going to transfer Indian affairs as well? If he does not, he will have been guilty of building a wall between two racial groups in northern Quebec, particularly those communities where Indians and Eskimos are living at the present moment side by side in harmony.
The Prime Minister has built an image of himself. I believe this image to be an honest one of understanding the need to unite the various racial groups in Canada. He has said he wishes to bind the wounds between the

races. I believe in this, but I suggest that the present agreement which has been reached will do precisely the opposite.
I also suggest that the problem of the jurisdiction over these Eskimo people is essentially the problem of confederation. Heaven knows, the Prime Minister took the time in his fireside talk to the nation to tell us confederation itself was at a crossroads.
I have listened at great length during the question period when this matter was discussed. To date I have not participated in the debate nor have I asked questions about the Eskimo people in northern Quebec. However I do feel the time has come for me to put on the record some of what I know about the Eskimo people and their feelings. The Eskimo people in the Canadian north know me, and know me well. They trust me because I have travelled among them, I have worked among them and I have lived with them. My family has been in the Northwest Territories since the early 1900's. My own children were born in the Northwest Territories, and I know the Eskimo people for all of their qualities. For this reason I want to put on the record some arguments to contradict those things that have been said to date about them.
I recall very well being a resident of the north when the Nielsen bill to extend the federal franchise came before the house. I know the results of that bill were felt locally. They were felt nationally and indeed internationally. At this stage I want to put on the record a quotation that should be of interest to all hon. members, a quotation from a man who conducted the enumeration along the distant early warning line. It is interesting, because it tells about the effect of the vote among American people serving in the Canadian north. I quote:
It was surprising the amount of interest shown on the D.E.W. line in respect of the election. Prior to this they used to do a lot of moaning and criticizing of the government, with the usual remark of "taxation without representation." You never hear the remarks or criticism any more, as just the fact that they can vote in a federal election has resulted in building up the prestige of this wonderful Canada of ours, tremendously in their eyes.. .Believe that the steps taken to bring the vote to the D.E.W. line stations and adjacent villages brought home to our American friends up here the fact that not only is Canada a democracy but that the government is prepared to go to all kinds of trouble and expense to see that Canadian citizens of high and low status, are given an opportunity to vote and elect whatever government representatives that they so desire.
That was a quotation from a letter sent to Mr. Castonguay, and I feel it should be on the record because it shows this measure did have international repercussions.
Some people may ask, do the Eskimo people exercise the franchise they won after so

many years? One need only look at the statistics. The average turn-out at the polls among Eskimo people has been around 79 per cent to 80 per cent of the eligible voters. I personally know of instances where Eskimo families travelled three days and three nights in weather down to 45 degrees below zero, in order to get to the nearest polling station to cast their ballots. If this is not a group of people prepared to assume the responsibility to vote and who are willing and able to be consulted, then I know of no other group like them in Canada.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Justice and to the minister of northern affairs that these people would be hurt and insulted if we allowed this agreement to take place without their participation.
In conclusion I want to quote a paragraph from some testimony which was given before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last December by Mr. Robert Williamson. Mr. Williamson is the foremost Eskimo linguist in Canada, and is known to all the Eskimo people throughout the Canadian north as Bob. He speaks all their dialects. He too knows and understands their problems and this is what he said, referring to the Eskimo people:
This is a people who in a very short historical period conquered and successfully lived in the most difficult and merciless part of the world. They covered an area 4,000 miles wide from Alaska to eastern Greenland and extending from as far south as 600 miles north of Ottawa to 500 miles from the pole. All this was done with no resources other than the skins and bones of the country's hard-won game, and the great powers of endurance and resourcefulness of this exceptionally intelligent race. To survive in the north, one had to be intelligent. The less intelligent were simply eliminated by nature. This process, over 4,000 years, has bred a race of people who have a higher degree of intelligence among them than any other identifiable human group. I know that their capability, their resourcefulness, and their drive are enormous. They are a people of great sophistication.
In conclusion I ask the Minister of Justice and the minister of northern affairs, both of whom I know are concerned over the way this is being handled, to give the committee a clear statement. They should assure us that the Eskimo people will in fact be consulted and will have an opportunity through a referendum to state their wishes. They must assure us also that the Eskimo people will have access to independent counsel during the negotiations. Further, I want them to give an assurance that the rights of parliament to inspect any agreement will be respected. The issue is the issue of selfdetermination. It is the issue which is at stake all over the world. It is the issue at stake in Angola, in the Congo, in Cyprus and Birmingham, Alabama; and if we do not change our ways, and fail to solve it in the 20220-94
Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary Canadian north, then the tragedy will be that Canadian men and women may be called upon to fight and die for the same failure in other parts of the world.
Progress reported.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in order to allow as much time as possible for interim supply and, if I may put it frankly, to bring us if possible closer to an Easter recess, I would suggest that the house give unanimous consent to proceed with government business until six p.m. this afternoon. Of course, as usual, the private members' hour would not be lost but retained as the fortieth usual hour during the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to forgo the private members' hour from five to six o'clock but I thought we were assured the Easter recess would start tomorrow at 6 p.m.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly an expression of the desire of hon. members to rush through the government's, or the public's business in order to have a recess. But I think, inasmuch as that is the desire, and this house and the country was promised on more than one occasion that the government would be able to organize its business in such a way that they would not be continually in these rushed periods, the better course to follow would be to take the private members' hour today.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, as far as we in the Social Credit party are concerned, we would be quite happy to proceed as the government house leader has suggested.


Erik Nielsen: Naturally.


An hon. Member:: Is there unanimous consent?


Frank Howard: No, there is not. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed to the normal business that arises at five o'clock today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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, public bills.



BOUNDARIES


Gilles Grégoire: That in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of appointing a committee to study the matter of the Labrador boundaries between the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland.

Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary [Translation]
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am introducing is quite simple and contains few specifications, precisely in order to be well received by all and to meet the wish of all members of the house. Its purpose is to ask the government to consider the advisability of setting up a committee to study the determination of Labrador boundaries between Quebec and Newfoundland.
At this time, borders between these two provinces are vague and indefinite. As a matter of fact, in many places, they are not defined clearly enough. On the other hand, elsewhere, I feel that they are against all logic, against all the principles of geography and anthropography, that is, against all the laws of hydrography, mapping and demography. They also run counter to the laws of industrial development.
Mr. Speaker, that is the source, the cause of internal and external problems.
We merely request the setting up of a committee, leaving to the government the choice of the type of investigation committee or commission. We do not wish to start a debate on the type of committee or commission in question. That is left to the government. We would simply like the government to study the matter, because there is a point of conflict, problems are being raised and we merely ask the government to take the matter into consideration.
We believe that is an extremely important problem for Newfoundland and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not labour the point, because I think no member of this house should object to a request to set up a committee in such general terms as those we suggested. Furthermore, we are convinced that no hon. member can object to a study of the matter, especially in view of the fact that it is a point of argument.
Therefore, I ask the house to accept our suggestion to set up a committee, leaving it to the government to decide what kind of committee or commission would be appropriate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). It is time a committee was set up so that a final agreement might be reached to mark the boundaries of Labrador, and more particularly the territory belonging to Quebec and the one belonging to Newfoundland.
It is acknowledged that this problem has been outstanding for many years, and if the province of Quebec lost part of Labrador, it is probably because the government of the time, the Taschereau government, failed to send competent lawyers to London to plead

Quebec's cause. It is found now that this part of Canada is very rich, that it constitutes a mining empire, with a tremendous power potential, perhaps the greatest in the world. Some time ago, the Newfoundland and Quebec premiers initiated negotiations. I note that the Quebec premier seems ready to yield to the requirements and demands of the Newfoundland government.
I know that Mr. Smallwood has his own interests to defend, that he is trying to keep this territory and take as much as possible for himself. But I think that the Quebec premier should be adamant and not yield, so that Quebec might regain as much as possible of that valuable territory.
If a committee was established, experts, geographers, technicians from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the two premiers involved could be summoned in order to reach an agreement of sorts.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat I should like to express the hope that the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe will be carried because I am convinced that it is logical.
I further hope that the Quebec premier will adopt a firm attitude since all his people stand behind him just like Mr. Smallwood has the full support of his province.
In my opinion, it is important that the Quebec premier should not accept a compromise which would be unfavourable to his province. That is what we fear in the province of Quebec, and I would be most happy if our premier were to take immediate and firm action so that our province could recuperate as much as possible of that territory which, morally speaking, belongs to us.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, when I first looked at this motion my immediate impulse was to raise a point of order. But upon observing that it only asks this house to express an opinion, and since in a free country free people should be able to express opinions on any matter, I felt that perhaps it would not be worth while to take up the time of the house with points of order. But even if the rules permit a debate of this kind, there is still the question of the propriety of considering certain courses of action. This question of propriety is tied in with responsible behaviour in this house, which in turn determines the image of parliament which we create in the public mind.
A few days ago parliament used up private members' hour debating a motion which was directed to the consideration of the advisability of buying a house which had already been bought. While that may have been permissible under our rules, I doubt very much

whether it was a proper use of the time of this parliament and that we enhanced the image of parliament by using this time for that purpose. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the particular motion before us now is of the same order of futility, because it seeks to debate the advisability of setting up a committee to study something which has already been studied, and not only studied but brought to a final conclusion, which is binding on all parties concerned. Certainly we will not enhance the image of parliament in the mind of the public if we spend another hour today discussing a matter which has already been settled and finalized when there is so much other business to be done and 50 or more private members' motions are on the order paper awaiting debate.
If this debate is not helpful to parliament, the question then arises: What purpose does it serve? Does it serve the cause of the constituents of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)? Does it serve the cause of the province of Quebec or the province of Newfoundland? Does it serve the cause of Canada? Does it serve the cause of democracy? I propose to show that it serves none of these purposes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Byrne:: It is political.


Chesley William Carter: Well, I do not want to impute motives because I think that is against the rules of the house. I was interested to note that the hon. member for Lapointe advanced no reason at all as to why this motion should be discussed. However the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) was a little more specific about his motivation. I think we should be very clear as to what this motion asks us to do. In the first place it asks us to consider the advisability of a course of action, namely to set up a committee to study the boundary line between two provinces. The key word here is "advisability". In other words, we are to consider the advisability of the federal government poking its nose into provincial affairs.
The hon. member for Lapointe has prided himself on being the champion of provincial autonomy. On many occasions he has been very vociferous when he felt that provincial rights and autonomy were being violated. What a surprising somersault he has performed today in taking the very opposite course and asking us to consider the advisability of directing the government to interfere in provincial matters.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, my intentions have already been dealt with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Will the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) state his point of privilege.
20220-94J
Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My intentions or my actions have been dealt with,, and I have been charged with making a somersault in this house with this motion. I think this is a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I
cannot construe the hon. member's argument as a point of privilege. I think there are two possibilities open to him. He could when he speaks refute the arguments presented by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), but as he has already spoken he can ask unanimous consent of the house to do so after the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has finished, or he can make any explanation he wishes to make at that time. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out the paramount inconsistency of the hon. member for Lapointe in bringing a motion of this kind before parliament for debate. What would he say if some member proposed a motion to set up a committee to investigate education in the provinces, or to study health matters in the provinces? Would he be in agreement with that?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Chesley William Carter: Then how can he be in agreement with respect to other matters which are primarily of provincial concern and of no concern whatever of this house? What would this committee do, Mr. Speaker? Would it just study the matter and then have their studies evaporate into thin air?


Gilles Grégoire: That is for you and the Liberal party to do.


Chesley William Carter: Is this committee supposed to make reports and recommendations? What good would there be in just carrying out a study if the study was not to result in further action? What kind of study would this committee carry out?


Gilles Grégoire: A serious one.


Chesley William Carter: Would it just review the old legal arguments all over again, which have been debated a number of times?


Gilles Grégoire: Where?


Chesley William Carter: I will tell you in time; just wait and listen.


Gilles Grégoire: When?


Chesley William Carter: I would remind my hon. friend that this question was studied by the judicial committee of the privy council in the United Kingdom.


Gilles Grégoire: That is in England.


An hon. Member:: Get up on your feet.

Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary


Chesley William Carter: Yes, that is true, it is in England. It is also the final court of appeal for disputes between member countries of the commonwealth. I would also point out to my hon. friend that this particular body is so highly regarded in all the provinces of Canada, and particularly in Quebec, that even to this day they have preferred to have it handle disputes between provinces rather than repatriate the constitution and have such disputes settled by this parliament.
We must ask ourselves what effect the adoption of this motion would have on our judicial procedure. Would there ever be any finality to judicial decisions if every time someone disagreed with them parliament could pass a motion asking for further studies? What about the situation which arises when we set up arbitration procedures and appoint mediators to act in industrial disputes? It is the same principle, exactly. The hon. member said, in introducing his remarks, that the decision handed down by the judicial council was vague.


Gilles Grégoire: I never said that.


Chesley William Carter: Oh, yes. I wrote the words down. He said the decision was vague and the boundary line was vague.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, I never said that. I said the boundaries referred to in the decision were vague.


Chesley William Carter: All right. I will accept the hon. member's correction. But if he will sit down I will show him that the boundary line is not vague. I am reading from a book entitled "Newfoundland" by R. H. Tait which is available in the library. Under the heading "The Final Award" appears this paragraph:
The boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula is a line drawn due north from the eastern boundary of the bay or harbour of Blanc Sablon as far as the 52nd degree of north latitude thence westward along that parallel until it reaches the Romaine river, and then northward along the left or east bank of that river and its headwaters to their source-
Is that vague? The paragraph goes on:
-and thence due north to the crest of the watershed of the rivers flowing into the Atlantic ocean until it reaches cape Chidley.
I ask the hon. member what is vague about that?


Gilles Grégoire: Everything.


Chesley William Carter: It is vague only to people who cannot understand.
Both parties to that dispute agreed to accept the decision, and not only to accept it but to accept it as final and binding. Canada was one of those parties. To open this question for revision would imply bad faith on Canada's part. What would Canada's word

be worth, then? What kind of image of Canada would we be creating in the minds of people abroad?
I wish to point out something else for the benefit of the hon. member. The boundary line between Newfoundland and mainland Canada is embodied in the terms of union which I hold in my hand. For the benefit of the hon. member and of others I should like to read the first two terms of this agreement.


An hon. Member:: Read term 29.


Chesley William Carter: I will come to term 29, but not today. Here is term 1 which appears under the subheading "Union".
On, from, and after the coming into force of these terms (hereinafter referred to as the date of union). Newfoundland shall form part of Canada and shall be a province thereof to be called and known as the province of Newfoundland.
Term 2-and this is the important one- reads:
The province of Newfoundland shall comprise the same territory as at the date of union, that is to say the island of Newfoundland and the islands adjacent thereto, the coast of Labrador as delimited in the report delivered by the judicial committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on the first day of March, 1927, and approved by His Majesty in His Privy Council on the twenty second day of March, 1927, and the islands adjacent to the said coast of Labrador.
The hon. member may not realize that these terms of union constitute an agreement between two sovereign states. This document is not something that can be changed by unilateral action. It is in the nature of a treaty between sovereign states. It is also a part of the British North America Act, which is the Canadian constitution. What kind of a picture would we be creating if the attitude implied by the hon. member were to be taken toward agreements and treaties of such a nature? What would be the picture of Canada abroad if we treated such a document as a scrap of paper?
Here I would point out another inconsistency on the part of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). He has always been complaining most vociferously, indeed, vehemently at times, that English speaking Canada has not lived up to the terms of the British North America Act. This, he says, has been the cause of part of the trouble between French speaking and English speaking Canada. Now the hon. member himself wishes to scrap part of the British North America Act. Is this consistent? This is also part of Canada's constitution, every portion of which has the same value as any other. Perhaps the hon. member takes the position that the parts of it which are disagreeable to him and to those he represents in Quebec should be scrapped, while those other parts with which he does happen to agree should be regarded as sacred and

nothing should be done to change them. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. Either the constitution is binding on all, or it is not, and if it is binding on all it is binding on Quebec as well as on the other provinces.
I think the hon. member is doing a disservice to his constituents, to the people of Quebec and to Canada when he brings forward a motion of this kind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Gilles Grégoire: On condition that I would have the right to answer the charges made by him.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Then no unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Lapointe will have the right to make any rebuttal he wishes to make when he winds up the debate on second reading.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it looked like we were having a bit of a family squabble for a while, and I am sure that is primarily what it is. I cannot help but agree with the last remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) when he pointed out what is becoming more obvious every day, namely that when someone from Quebec becomes involved in anything in the house or proposes anything in the house they want to have it both ways. They do not want anybody else to say anything at all about what happens in Quebec, but they want the federal government to intervene on their behalf whenever they have a problem with some other part of the nation. As far as I am concerned this desire to have it both ways should cease and desist.
I am not so much concerned at this stage about this family squabble with regard to where the boundary should go, if it should go anywhere. I only rise to say that if the motion passes and if the government is going to consider the advisability of establishing a committee to deal, as the motion says, with the particular boundaries to which it refers, then I do not think the terms of reference of that committee should be so narrow as those contained in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). We have other boundary problems in this country in addition to this one and they too deserve extensive investigation.
Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Frank Howard: I think particularly of my own home community and that area encompassing northwestern British Columbia and the Panhandle of Alaska.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the terms of this motion are confined to one part of the country. If my hon. friend wants to raise another matter I submit he will have to present his own motion. I think he is completely out of order in bringing other subjects into the discussion.


Erik Nielsen: It concerns boundaries.


Frank Howard: Again we have an indication of this narrowmindedness.


Gilles Grégoire: You bring your own motion.


Frank Howard: The hon. member says I should bring my problem forward by way of another motion. I intend to do it by tacking on an amendment to the motion now before us. If that will satisfy my friend, perhaps he will cease interrupting me and let me continue.


Gilles Grégoire: You are out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether you would protect me from these chatterings that are going on behind me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your ruling on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I would hope the hon. member for Skeena would stay as closely as possible with the motion before the house, but I should point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that, with reference to interruptions during a debate, Beau-chesne has this to say in citation 126, paragraph 2, found on page 114:
The rule is well known that interruptions should not be tolerated.
I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe will want to observe the rules of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have asked for your ruling on the question, can the hon. member discuss a subject other than the one set forth in the motion? Can he discuss anything under the motion as presented? I ask for your ruling on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I have already asked the hon. member for Skeena to adhere as closely as possible to the motion before the house and I am sure he will do that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted this last time I was about to say that I would be very happy to comply with your ruling and that I should stick as

Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary closely as possible to the motion now before ps. This is what I intend to do, by pointing out that the motion is far too narrow in its concept and I intend to move an amendment to it. I want to lead up to the amendment by making some preliminary remarks about the content of the amendment I intend to move. I referred earlier to the boundary along the Alaskan Panhandle between the state of Alaska and the province of British Columbia. If one wants to see a definition of a boundary that is vague and meaningless then all he has to do is read the agreement made between the United Kingdom and Russia in 1825, I believe, defining the line of demarcation between Russian territory and what was then British territory. If anything is vague and meaningless, that agreement is.
Finally however an international commission was established which arrived at a decision in 1903 dictated primarily by the foreign policy of the United States. This decision resulted in Canada's coming out second best and having its interests sold completely [DOT]down the river by the chairman of that commission, which met in London. I do not intend to go into the background detail of that matter. I merely wish to point out that because of that decision, based upon an extremely vague definition of where the boundary should be, a decision written incidentally by people who had never been there and did not know the region at all, it is high time for this particular boundary problem to be studied carefully so that British Columbia can get a fair and square deal with regard to the boundaries involved.
There is also an unresolved boundary problem between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. It concerns the boundary between those two provinces in relation to the international boundary along the St. Lawrence river, and it adversely affects the native Indian people who live in that area. Founded upon this brief explanation I should like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. 'member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for having only one copy. I prepared it here in the house and was not able to make more. The amendment is as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following:
. "and the matter of the boundary between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario at the international boundary, and the matter of the international boundary along the Alaska .Panhandle between the state of Alaska and the province of British Columbia.
In essence the amendment embraces the two additional problems to which I referred earlier. If it was in order, as it apparently Was, for the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to argue

that the parliament of Canada should consider the establishment of a committee to deal with the boundary between two of the provinces, then I simply say that surely it is even more in order to extend the terms of that committee to deal with international boundaries which are solely the concern of the parliament of Canada. Let us do that so that the northern part of British Columbia can be put on a more equitable footing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The motion before us asks that the government give consideration to the advisability of appointing a committee to study the matter of the Labrador boundaries between the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland. In my view the motion is not one to appoint a committee, but rather to appoint a committee for the consideration of one specific thing. I believe that the amendment presented by the hon. member for Skeena enlarges the intent of the motion before us and I would therefore rule it out of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member for Skeena made a remark, I think, which I as a member of the Progressive Conservative party cannot let pass without putting the record straight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: If the
hon. member wishes to refute anything said by another hon. member in debate, then he will have to wait until his turn comes to speak. I do not believe an attempt to refute an argument constitutes a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With all due deference to Your Honour, I think I have the right to rise on a question of privilege because the hon. member for Skeena implied a number of things about members from the province of Quebec. I think it is my duty to stand up here and refute what he has said.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman who is the Leader of the Opposition once used a phrase, in reference to someone else, "eggshell sensibilities". I am sure that is what the hon. member is now exhibiting when he attempts to rise on a question of privilege concerning my remarks. This exemplifies what has been said about the people coming from Quebec, "You cannot have it both ways; you have to have it one way, and that is that."


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is my point of privilege. I say that we have to have respect for those who do not share our point of view. We have been sent here by the people of Quebec, and we are sick and tired of being pointed

out as some sort o f bird of which there is only one species. As one from the province of Quebec, I am sick and tired of this, and I want to say so in the House of Commons. It is about time we were respected as we are supposed to be, because we represent the opinions and aspirations of the province of Quebec. We are tired of being accused by members like the one who just took his seat of trying to have everything our own way. This is not what we want. We want to place our views in front of this house, and nothing more. We recognize that others have a right to their opinion, just as we have a right to ours.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, I should like to endorse most heartily the remarks made by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of privilege.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If he is in order, then I am in order too. I come from the same province and I want to endorse his remarks.


Mr. Winch:: When the Speaker is standing up, you should sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. An attempt to refute an argument does not constitute a question of privilege. Neither refuting an argument made by an hon. member of the house nor taking the opportunity to agree with an hon. member constitutes a question of privilege. When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot arose, I pointed out to him that he had no question of privilege in refuting the hon. member's statement, and I point out to the hon. member now that he has no question of privilege.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my brief remarks on such a ticklish question as that of the boundaries between the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland, I say right now to the house that I do not pretend to be an expert.
However, as representative of the Saguenay county, which has the largest surface area in Canada, except the Northwest Territories, because it comprises 375,000 square miles and contains a wealth of natural resources, specially iron ore, it is imperative that I say a few words. This county borders on several points of the province of Newfoundland, as varied as they are difficult.
I should also add that the railway line which stretches out from Seven Islands to Schefferville crosses the border into Newfoundland at several points. I often did it on foot and even with snowshoes.
Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary
Again last fall, when I was in Blanc-Sablon, the terminal point of the Quebec Labrador coast, I was quite astonished to see an ordinary rock, bearing no inscription, thrown there haphazardly, as it were, indicating the frontier between the two provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there is no official dividing line between the two provinces. This is not a new problem. It has been the subject of many an article, but to no avail unfortunately.
I think that instead of setting up a committee to consider the matter of frontiers in this vast territory, as suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), it would be better to appoint a commission such as the international frontier commission, for instance.
That commission comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. It has one representative from Canada and one from the United States.


Gilles Grégoire: What will the United States be doing there?


Gustave Blouin: I would ask the hon. member to wait a moment.
That commission is concerned especially with the boundary between Canada and the United States. It does not deal with the boundaries between the provinces of the federal territories.
However, there are other commissions. For instance, the general surveyor of Canada is often called upon to determine, on the spot, the boundary lines between various provinces or the common boundary between the federal territories and the provinces. That is how ad hoc commissions are set up in each case.
The general surveyor of Canada has been asked to help mark the boundaries between British Columbia and Alberta, between Alberta and Saskatchewan, between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and between Ontario and Manitoba. In each of these cases, a tripartite commission was set up, with a representative of each of the provinces involved and one of the federal government, which in such cases is always the general surveyor of Canada.
In other cases, where boundaries between a province and a federal territory are involved, it is a bipartite commission. That was the case of British Columbia and Yukon, of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, as well as of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
The cost of marking those boundaries is generally divided in two equal shares in the case of a bipartite commission.
When tripartite commissions were established, that is, when two provinces wanted to settle their boundary problems by asking the federal government to participate, in

Quebec-Newfoundland Boundary some instances, the federal government paid a certain amount; in some cases also, many years ago, the federal government did not contribute anything, but acted as arbitrator.
In the case of the frontier between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the federal government recently took part in the work involved and paid one third of the total cost, the two provinces concerned paying one third each.
This participation by the federal government has never been imposed by the general surveyor of Canada; in other words, the federal government waits for a formal invitation before undertaking any such work.
As far as Quebec is concerned, the problem of the Labrador frontier is not the only one creating a conflict. The question of the islands in lake St. Francois is still to be settled definitely between Ontario and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that some federal ministers of mines and technical surveys have in the past offered to help the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to solve this problem and I do not believe that either the federal government, Quebec or Ontario have received any answer in that respect.
As far as the Quebec-Labrador boundary is concerned, the federal government has never been invited to participate in any way in that delimitation. On the maps issued by the federal government, the boundary line indicated is that of the level of the lands, according to a judgment rendered in 1927 by the London privy council. On the maps issued by the province of Quebec, that boundary is never shown-at least on those issued during the last 20 or 30 years-and in the corner of the map, we usually find that reference:
The boundary line between Quebec and Newfoundland is not shown on that map, with good reason.
I believe that footnote was added on the maps published by the province of Quebec at the special request of the former premier, Hon. Maurice Duplessis.
If you keep to the decision rendered by the privy council in London in 1927, you would, of course, have to determine on the spot the exact position of that boundary line between what is commonly called Labrador and Quebec. You could then proceed according to one of the following methods:
First, the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland could each appoint a commissioner and agree beforehand to be bound by their findings. In the event of conflict concerning certain points of the boundary, they could refer the question to a consultant or an arbitrator who would be neither from Quebec nor from Newfoundland. This consultant could be a recognized firm of engineers and surveyors, or the surveyor general of Canada.


Second, an independent organization in Quebec or Newfoundland could simply be asked to do the work.
Third, a three-member commission could be created which would include a representative of the province of Quebec, one of Newfoundland and a third one from the federal government. As I say, that is how most provinces proceeded.
Even though I have no idea how much it would cost, I should like to say that modern land-surveying techniques would make it easy to draw a line in the territory concerned. Satisfactory results could be achieved by means of aerial photography and photographic surveying.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must assure the house that we have no intention of taking something away from Newfoundland to give it to Quebec or vice-versa. We just want a commission constituted as I have just indicated, to determine once and for all the boundaries of those two provinces which contribute so much to the economy of the whole country.
The boundary line between those two provinces has, as I said, often been mentioned. I have travelled along those frontiers on many occasions, and I have never seen any official boundary line.
If we refer to the revised statutes of 1952, chapter 11-

The British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Victoria chapter 28, an act respecting the establishment of provinces in the Dominion of Canada, section 3:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.

As it is getting late, I again suggest that a commission similar to the one I mentioned a moment ago be set up to determine once and for all the boundary line between those two very important provinces.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to ask the acting house leader if it is the intention of the government to proceed with interim supply first thing tomorrow and, on the conclusion

of that, to deal with supplementary estimates?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) are substantially correct. If any changes in the proposals for tomorrow are made they will be communicated to the leaders of the respective taken at Elliot Lake?


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the acting house leader, if we do not finish these two items by six o'clock tomorrow when will the house have the opportunity to complete its work?
Business of the House


John Watson MacNaught: I am afraid I could not give an answer to that question without further consultation with my colleagues.


Mr. Monieiih:: You certainly live from hand to mouth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock, and pursuant to special order made this day, this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. March 26, 1964