1965-06-16

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated on June 1, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec has transmitted to the Governor General, with favourable advice from the Government of Quebec, the Address to the Queen concerning the powers of the Legislative Council and the Address to the Governor General requesting him to transmit the Address to the Queen, with the assent of the Government of Canada, both of which were approved by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec on May 26. The Address to the Queen requests the passage of a new section 79A of the British North America Act to redefine the powers of the Legislative Council of Quebec.
I should now like to table copies of the Addresses of the Legislative Assembly to the Queen and to the Governor General; of the instrument of advice from the Government of Quebec to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec; and of an exchange of letters which the Prime Minister subsequently had with Prime Minister Lesage to confirm that the Government of Quebec recommended action in accordance with the Assembly's Address.
To complete the outline of events to this date I may add that on June 8 the Governor General wrote to the Prime Minister asking for his advice as to the action he should take on the Address to the Queen.
In determining the nature of advice that it is the duty of the Government to give to the Governor General in this matter, the Government has given the most careful consideration to every aspect of what is a most complex and genuinely unprecedented situation.
The Address requests an amendment to the constitution of the Province of Quebec. Normally an amendment to the constitution of a province is made by provincial legislation under section 92(1) of the British North 22620-158
America Act. Indeed, the Government of Quebec sought to make the change in this way, but was frustrated in securing passage of the Bill by the Legislative Council, although the legislation had received the approval of the Legislative Assembly. The power of the Legislature to enact legislation under section 92(1) does not remove the jurisdiction of the British Parliament to amend the British North America Act itself, and it is such an amendment that is now sought by the Government of Quebec. The course proposed is entirely constitutional even though it is unprecedented.
Since there is no doubt as to the constitutionality of the course of action the Government of Quebec has recommended, the second question for our government has been the procedure it should follow with regard to it.
The proposed new section 79A of the British North America Act concerns only the provisions in that Act respecting the Legislative Council of the Province of Quebec. It affects neither the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, the operation of the laws of Canada, nor any other province. The proposed change is in no way repugnant to the other provisions of the British North America Act. In short, this is a purely provincial matter of concern to Quebec alone. Because of these features, the proposed amendment is without any precedent in our history. We have never had an amendment to the British North America Act that concerned the constitution of only one province without concerning any other province, and which did not concern the federal authority.
The White Paper on Constitutional Amendment points out that a constitutional practice has developed that the sanction of Parliament is required for an amendment to the British North America Act. But that practice grew up in relation to amendments that concerned Parliament, the Government of Canada or the relationship between the Federal Government and the Provinces. What the Government has had to consider is how this practice relates to an unprecedented type of amendment.
The precedents with regard to amendment of the B.N.A. Act are listed on pages 11 to 15 of the White Paper on the Amendment of
June 16# 1965

Quebec Provincial Constitution the Constitution oi Canada which was tabled in this House on March 2, 1965. Hon. Members can readily confirm that not one of them was like the present one in being purely in relation to the constitution of one province. On those facts it is clear that the "principle" enunciated on page 15 of the White Paper, that the "sanction of Parliament is required for a request to the British Parliament for an amendment to the B.N.A. Act", does not apply to the present case.
For the same reasons it is equally clear that the opinion expressed by the House of Commons of 1871, as set forth on page 11 of the White Paper, does not apply. The House of Commons of that day adopted a resolution expressing the opinion that " ... no changes in the provisions of the British North America Act (would) be sought by the Executive Government without the previous assent of the Parliament of this Dominion". That view does not apply to a change sought by the Government of a Province relating solely to the Constitution of that Province.
Moreover, in a purely provincial matter of this kind, it seems to the Government that it would be wrong to act on a basis that appeared to suggest that Parliament could sit in judgment on the action of a Province within its own constitutional sphere. The Government has assumed that Parliament would not wish to do anything which would either deny the right of a Province to have its own Constitution amended in an entirely constitutional way, through amendment of the British North America Act, or to imply that the Federal Parliament has through an Address of the Senate and House of Commons the right or power itself to decide what the internal organization of a particular provincial authority should be. Apart from the office of Lieutenant Governor, those are matters which concern that province alone and not the Senate or House of Commons in Ottawa.
We have consequently come to the conclusion that the Government should advise the Governor General and, through him, the Queen to act in this matter in accordance with the advice of the responsible provincial Ministers, with whom alone the Government of Canada can properly communicate on matters relating to the Provinces as such. The Government of Canada comes into the matter because it has a responsibility to advise the Governor General and the Queen. The Canadian Government also must make the determination that there is not any aspect

of the proposed change that is of Federal concern. The Government has made that determination and intends to assume its constitutional responsibility of advising the Governor General and the Queen. The Government's advice will be favourable to the action requested for the reasons I have mentioned.
In case there is any doubt as to the propriety of revealing advice to the Crown before it is actually given, let me say at this point that, for ample caution, the permission of both the Governor General and the Queen has been secured to inform Parliament of the course that is intended.
To complete the elements of this complex problem that the Government has considered, let me say that the basic position of the Government would not differ as between an Address to the Queen from the elected Legislative Assembly and one from the appointed Legislative Council. The essential question in this matter which concerns Quebec only is the advice of the responsible provincial Ministers. The Government is satisfied, after an exhaustive study of the matter, that the course I have outlined is the right and proper one in an unprecedented and difficult situation.
However, in a matter of this kind the Government is not prepared to act formally until this House has a chance to express a view if it so wishes. In accordance with its opinion that this is a matter that concerns only the Constitution of Quebec, the Government does not propose to introduce any Address or Resolution calling for parliamentary action by both Houses. The Prime Minister stated on June 14 that the House would have an opportunity of expressing its views on this matter before any request was made of Her Majesty or of the British Government. Accordingly, to provide this opportunity the Government will be prepared to introduce a supply motion next Monday so that Members of the House may express their views on the course which the Canadian Government has decided to follow. No advice will be formally tendered to the Governor General or to the Queen until that opportunity for the expression of opinion in this House has been provided.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that the only notice that we of the official opposition received from the Government that this matter would be brought up today was two minutes' notice in advance of the opening
June 16, 1965	COMMONS
of this House; when a copy of the statement to the press was, by the grace of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, given to those who would have to discuss it. This is but another example of an attitude on the part of the Government that is not in keeping with the traditions of Parliament.
I say at once that the alleged opportunity given to the House of Commons to discuss this matter by calling a supply motion on Monday next is an evasion of Parliament. It simply amounts to this, that the Government has not got the backbone to introduce a resolution in the House of Commons but wants to determine what shall be the amendment moved by the Opposition. This is a further step along the road of control that had its beginning when this Government took office and which it has followed since. Let the Government make its recommendation by an Address and bring it before Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It has been said-my quotation may not be correct but it is to the point-
O. what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
This certainly applies to the Government in regard to this matter.
What is this course that is being adopted?
I had the opportunity as the hon. gentleman read the statement to read it along with him, and I can summarize it in this way. This course is one that is dangerous to the Canadian constitution and its preservation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not arguing the question whether there should or should not be a second chamber in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Sharp:: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: I have my own views with regard to the unicameral system and the bicameral system, but that is not the issue here.
Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker, in this matter? Arrangements were made under the table between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec; and if the Cabinet do not know about them they had better read what Mr. Lesage said as to the arrangements in the Legislature of Quebec. An arrangement was made between them in the spirit of what they now call co-operative federalism, which more and more is becoming a system of under the table arrangements, whereby the Prime Minister of Canada agreed
DEBATES	2481
Quebec Provincial Constitution to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the acceptance of a resolution by one House of the Legislature of Quebec.
The Constitution clearly provides that the Legislature of Quebec consists of the Queen, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. That is the fact, and they agreed to this. They undertook to do whatever the Premier of Quebec wanted done, but they would not admit it in the House. I asked the Prime Minister, and he said there had been no agreement whatsoever and no arrangement whereby a resolution of one House, the Legislative Assembly, would be accepted and that recommendation passed on to the Crown. Having taken that stand-and I can quote from the Prime Minister's words- when finally it became apparent that this House would find out the fact and that the letter sent to Mr. Lesage would have to be produced, then the Prime Minister admitted that discussion in that connection had taken place.
This to me is a serious matter, and do you know what is behind it? It is the smiling Minister of Justice, the leader of the new guard. The leader of the new guard had to find a way whereby he could shove through the formula for the amendment of the Constitution. It was feared that as long as there was a Legislative Council he and those associated with him would not be able to force through the formula, and Mr. Lesage admitted that in the legislature. Something had to be done before the amendment formula was brought before the legislature, and the means followed were these. It first started with an address which passed the Legislative Assembly, was amended by the Legislative Council and then was withdrawn. It was realized that the hopes of the new guard, the old guard or the discards would not and could not be made effective, so they decided on a short cut.
Section 92(1) of the British North America Act provides that the Legislatures of Provinces have the exclusive power to amend the Provincial Constitution except as to the office of the Lieutenant Governor. This is an amendment of the Constitution of the Province of Quebec, and no amount of serious philosophy such as appears in the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister can get over this fact.
What is the legislature of Quebec? Under section 71 of the B.N.A. the legislature consists of the Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. What is being done here? The Federal
June 16, 1965

Quebec Provincial Constitution Government, afraid to face Parliament by standing for what it states it believes, in a speech made today by the Acting Prime Minister seeks a devious and unconstitutional course so the Prime Minister's agreement with the Premier of Quebec can be carried out. Does this mean that the Constitution is to be turned aside when it is convenient to do so? The answer must be in the affirmative, and that is the reason the Government adopts this ludicrous proposal of promising to give the House of Commons the opportunity of debate, as set out in the statement:
Accordingly, to provide this opportunity-
That is, for the expression of the views of this House.
-the Government will be prepared to introduce a Supply Motion next Monday, so that Members of the House may express their views on the course which the Canadian Government has decided to follow.
Then, wrapping themselves in the garments of constitutional purity, these words were added:
No advice will be formally tendered to the Governor General or to the Queen until that opportunity for the expression of opinion in this House has been provided.
How nonsensical can a Government become, to use our supply motion in order to provide that opportunity. This Government has no backbone. This is another example of a Government that reminds me, as I have said on other occasions, of a cushion that bears on itself the marks of the last person who sat on it. They have been told what to do. They promised what they would do, and now they carry out the promise.
I mentioned the promise. The Premier of Quebec, with unusual frankness-and I have the Hansard here for those who would read- said it would be impossible to bring about the end of the Legislative Council if the formula to amend the constitution were accepted. In other words he is saying that we have a formula and we want to bulldoze it through, but we will not be able to get it through the legislative council. Therefore let us remove the legislative council's powers by a recommendation through the Government of Canada. This is playing ducks and drakes with the constitution simply because of the promise that was made by the Prime Minister to the Premier in the month of February. In other words, the fact that the Premier of Quebec has so stated indicates that he recognizes that once the so-called Favreau formula-


Some hon. Members:: Fulton, Fulton.
IMr. Diefenbaker.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Fulton has already disavowed it in a statement he made the other day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Acting Prime Minister has made a statement on motions, and my understanding of the rules is that the leaders of the other parties are entitled to comment on the contents of the statement but not to debate it. I have some doubts as to whether this is not what the Leader of the Opposition is doing now. Perhaps he would want to bear this in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not trying to debate it; I am trying to throw some light on the nefarious conduct of this Government. If I were to debate it I would be quoting the precedents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I
might add that the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister indicated that an opportunity would be given to debate it on Monday, and that might be the time to debate the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you are always very fair, but you certainly cannot be asking us to allow the Government to tell us what amendments we are going to move.
I have before me all the various instances that have occurred since 1867. I am not going into them except to say this, that the statement made by the hon. gentleman today to the effect there is no precedent that can be used is entirely without basis in fact.


Mr. Churchill:: It is false.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that is an expression you are not allowed to use in Parliament unless you belong to the Government ranks. I say this. If I were to argue the case I would refer to two instances in which the very reverse of what is being done here form the precedents.
I said a moment ago that this goes back to a promise, denied in this House by the Prime Minister when I asked him about it, but then when it became apparent that it would be revealed, he admitted it. Here is what Mr. Lesage said on May 11 as reported on page 2,441 of the debates of the Quebec Legislative Assembly, and I am translating from the French. "Without doubt", Mr. Lesage said, "I am going to read the text which has been written by Mr. Pearson and by me". Then it says, "The Prime Minister of Canada said that his Government, if the Legislative Assembly of Quebec approves the Address to the Queen which he proposes to submit
June 16, 1965	COMMONS
to it, this Address would be transmitted to Her Majesty with favourable notice-avec avis favorable"-my French may not be good, but my understanding of the words and the translation is good.
The promise was made. Now what are they going to do? They talk about colonialism, and then they take this over to the United Kingdom. They recommend, in effect, that it be accepted, in spite of the fact that the Legislative Council which is part of the Legislature of Quebec has taken a different view. What do they do? They place it on the doorstep of the United Kingdom. They place the Queen in the arena of party politics. I regret this action, but they would do anything to escape the consequences of the promise that ought not to have been made by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Quebec. The Address to the Queen is being used as a club by the Federal Government and the Government majority in Quebec to coerce one of the branches of the Quebec Legislature into assuring approval of the Favreau formula.
This is an action that I protest. I say that the statement made by the Minister today is a massive evasion and does not reveal the facts in so far as the constitutional development of our country is concerned, and constitutes an action that cannot be justified. It means that Premier Lesage agrees with us as to the freezing effect of the formula for amending the constitution, because afterward there cannot be any changes. I underline that.
Amendments to curb the powers of or abolish second chambers have been attempted before. I have before me, but I shall not read it on this occasion, an extract from the report of the committee of the Privy Council of Canada, approved by His Excellency on October 8, 1894, when the abolition of the second chamber in Nova Scotia was to take place. The decision in this case was as follows:
The Minister, in conclusion, observes that it Her Majesty's Government should think the circumstances sufficient to warrant so grave a step as their support to any amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, to enable the Legislative Council to be abolished by proclamation, it would seem to be quite contrary to the spirit of the constitution that such a proclamation should, at any time, be a measure for the consideration of Your Excellency, for the reason that such matters are not, according to the Constitutional Act, under the control or supervision of Your Excellency and your Ministers with regard to any of the provinces.
Finally they agreed years after, and the institution was abolished.
I take the strongest objection to this attitude on the part of the Government of play-
DEBATES	2483
Quebec Provincial Constitution ing fast and loose with the constitution for political purposes, to carry out political promises that ought not to have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to protest having a matter as complex as this brought up on motions, with those who are expected to comment on it given no notice whatever about the nature of the statement which the Government was going to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I received this statement which was to be made by the Acting Prime Minister just as I was coming down to enter the Chamber. I have had no opportunity whatever to peruse it, and it seems to me if the Government is going to make statements on matters that are of as far reaching importance as this, we ought to have some opportunity to look at these statements, and some warning in this regard.
Also Mr. Speaker, I want to protest against the suggestion of the Acting Prime Minister that this House should be satisfied to discuss the matter on a supply motion next Monday. This is becoming a very bad habit with the Government, of trying to sneak things in under some other item. Right now we are having the problem of the exclusion of certain American magazines amidst 18 other items in a budget resolution, and at times we have had $1 estimates to cover quite wide programs.
Now the Government is virtually seeking to get approval for an amendment to the British North America Act without consulting Parliament. When the Acting Prime Minister says we can have a debate on the motion to go into supply, may I point out that this involves a motion of confidence; that those who want to register their objection would have no choice but to defeat the Government; that if the supply motion should pass, in spite of the protests of those who may object to the subject matter under discussion, the Governor General in Council will still be the body that will be forwarding this proposed amendment to Her Majesty the Queen, and not the Parliament of Canada.
Not since 1871 has the executive ever sought to exercise the authority to recommend amendments to the constitution without consulting the elected representatives of the people of Canada. Why are we being asked to act as rubber stamps for this Government?
2484	COMMONS
Quebec Provincial Constitution
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, as to where this party stands with reference to the abolition of upper chambers. We do not want to become involved in any internal disputes in the Province of Quebec, but the constitution has to be complied with and there are procedures set down which ought to be followed.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am just going to explain, if the hon. Member will be patient. I would be glad to explain, but I am not sure that in giving my hon. friend an explanation I can give him the intelligence with which to understand it.
The Acting Prime Minister says the resolution passed in the Commons in 1871 does not apply. That resolution said that "no changes in the provisions of the B.N.A. Act would be sought by the executive government without the previous consent of the Parliament of this Dominion."


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Acting Prime Minister says that does not apply, as this has to do only with the Province of Quebec. In the next paragraph in his statement he says:
The Government has assumed that Parliament would not wish to do anything which would either deny the right of a Province to have its own constitution amended in an entirely constitutional way-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is not being amended in a constitutional way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course it is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If this matter pertains only to the Province of Quebec, then the Province of Quebec can amend its own constitution.
This refers to section 72 of the B.N.A. Act, and in 1941 the Province of Quebec amended the Legislature Act. It has the power to amend the act now without reference to this Parliament or to Her Majesty the Queen, but the reason it has not amended the Act is that the Legislative Assembly cannot get the concurrence of the Legislative Council. For that reason it is now asking the Government of Canada to forward an address to Her Majesty the Queen so that one section of the Legislature of Quebec may ask for an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: To do what the constitution says cannot be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The moment that was sent to the Government of Canada the Government

DEBATES	June 16, 1965
of Canada had to decide whether it was going to forward it, but in our opinion the Government cannot forward it without submitting it to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So long as this matter can be dealt with by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, then it is a Quebec matter; but the moment it is forwarded to the Government of Canada then it becomes a matter for Parliament.
When the Acting Prime Minister says we can have a debate on the supply motion I am sure he realizes that the debate would only be in this chamber. Is the other place to have no voice in discussing this matter? If this were to become a unicameral Parliament I would be very happy, but let us do it properly and not by ignoring the other place. I certainly hope it will not be too difficult to persuade the Government to use the same method to abolish the upper chamber in this Parliament that is being used to abolish an upper chamber in a province.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to demand that the Government, if it is favourable to the address passed by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, bring that address into this Parliament. If there is to be a change in section 72 and the other relevant sections of the B.N.A. Act, then those changes ought to be contained in an address by the Parliament of Canada, not merely passed on by the executive without any reference to Parliament.
When I think of all the speeches hon. gentlemen opposite have made about having due regard for Parliament, and now they are going to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen by executive authority, a change in the constitution of Canada without any reference to Parliament Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that this action will live to haunt the Government, revealing as it does the hypocrisy of all its pretensions about its devotion to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I know the hon. gentleman did not intend to say we were amending the constitution of Canada. What is being amended is that portion of the constitution which, under the constitution, remains the exclusive province of the Province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 16, 1965	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Even a layman like myself knows what humbug that statement is, Mr. Speaker. If this amendment is solely within the jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec, then the Province of Quebec can deal with it without reference to the Federal Government at all. The fact is that they are not able to do so because they cannot get the concurrence of the upper chamber. So they are seeking an amendment not to the Legislature Act of Quebec but to the British North America Act; and these gentlemen opposite who have talked about democracy and their devotion to parliamentary government are now proceeding to ignore Parliament and act by executive authority alone in making a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen which in my opinion sets Canada back 90 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to tell the Government here and now that we shall not be satisfied with a debate on the supply motion next Monday. We shall insist, and keep on insisting, that the Government bring this address before Parliament. If this matter is to be handled by the Federal Government it must be handled by Parliament. I contend that the Government has no right to make any recommendation to Her Majesty on anything affecting the constitution of Canada without the advice and consent of this House and the upper chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Acting Prime Minister says "That is right". If it is right I suggest that he bring an address before this House asking Her Majesty the Queen to agree to the proposals made by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it affects the Parliament of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Government refuses to do this and bypasses Parliament, then the people of Canada will know that this Government is setting aside any pretensions it ever had of respect for parliamentary government and the constitution of this country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to join in the protest which has been made by previous speakers because we did not have a chance to see this document-


Some hon. Members:: That's a change.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we have listened now for 45 minutes to a debate on this
DEBATES	2485
Quebec Provincial Constitution question. We in this group have given an attentive hearing, although I was not aware that a statement made on motions entitled the House to engage in a full debate. It seems to me that the same respect and courtesy we gave could be extended to us now.
I think it was unfortunate that the Acting Prime Minister did not make copies of his statement available to us before we entered the House; they were handed to us only as we came in to the chamber. Having said this, I doubt very much that we have the right to consume the afternoon in a debate on this subject, whether or not we agree with the Minister's statement, especially since we are not fully prepared to take up this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: I cannot imagine this statement being prepared without the legal advisers of the Crown having given careful study to its contents. I believe we are dealing now with something which is certainly very rare as far as the Constitution is concerned, even if it is not altogether unprecedented. I think, therefore, the Government should have provided an opportunity for us to debate this question in circumstances other than those which arise on a supply motion. As I say, I do not think we are entitled to enter into a full debate on the issue this afternoon.
There is one point in the Minister's statement which impresses me. It is that this is purely a provincial matter of concern to Quebec alone. I believe this to be correct. Quebec is the only province in Canada which still has an upper house, and it seems to me that the organization of the structure of government within a province and the jurisdiction for which that Government should be responsible must belong to the elected Members of the provincial legislature.
I believe some Members of this House have been losing sight of a basic principle here. If this matter does concern strictly the Province of Quebec, then those responsible for decisions relating to the organization of Government within that province must be those who are elected as representatives of the people of Quebec. We live in a democracy. We say we believe in democracy. If that is so, then responsibility rests with those who have been elected to the assembly, provided always that the issue is strictly a provincial one.
The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam told us that never before had an amendment to the constitution been made without con-
2486	COMMONS
Quebec Provincial Constitution sultation with the people of Canada. However, this particular issue is one which relates only to the people of Quebec; and whether or not we agree with this action which has been taken in relation to the upper house in that province, it is the representatives elected by the people of Quebec who should have the say. I would say this is within then-constitutional authority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: Again I would ask those Members who are interrupting to show the same respect in listening to what I have to say that we gave to the leader of their own party. I will say this. I do not believe it is the constitutional right of the Province of Quebec to deal directly with the Crown, and therefore the transmission of their message- if they believe this is what should be done- should be carried out through the Federal Government.
I realize that the Minister's statement was made as a result of this problem having been placed before the Governor General, who approached this Government and asked for advice. This has been the advice. I believe it would have been much better for the Government to have sought the advice of Parliament, because I believe the transmission of such a request must be done through Parliament. Nevertheless, let us not lose sight of the democratic principle that the people of Quebec through their elected representatives have the final responsibility as far as this type of action is concerned.
I do not think we should prolong this debate further. Again I urge the Government to provide this House with an opportunity to discuss this issue in circumstances other than those which arise in connection with a supply motion. According to the Minister's statement a decision has already been made, so what is the use, after all, of bringing the matter before the House at all? It would do no more than provide us with an opportunity to state our various opinions. Still, it seems to me only reasonable that this subject should be brought before the House so that we may debate it in an appropriate manner.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it can be clearly seen that this problem places us in a very complicated situation and on the horns of a dilemma; indeed, for many of us, this procedure is quite unorthodox and often contrary to general opinion.
Surely suggestions can be made to solve that problem.

DEBATES	June 16, 1965
May I mention that the person mainly responsible for the dilemma facing us today is the Quebec premier, because he has been elected to take care of Quebec's problems and he has no business transferring those problems to the Ottawa government, the London government, the Governor General or the Queen.
In two elections, he cried: "Masters in our own house"! But now he can no longer settle his own problems, having to place them in the hands of other governments, of the governor general and of the Queen, etc., etc.
It is a problem for Quebec, not for Parliament in Ottawa. It is none of our business, it is Quebec's business.
I was glad to hear, a moment ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) say that it does not concern us, that it is not our problem, and that is a fact. If the matter has been placed in the hands of the federal government the latter should send it back as quickly as possible to the government of the province of Quebec telling them to solve their own problems. I am sure that when the citizens of Quebec read in Hansard tomorrow that all of us here said in turn that it is none of our business, that it is Quebec's business, then the Quebec government will realize how humiliating it is for them to have asked someone else to settle their own problem when they could have settled it in Quebec.
The responsibility rests mainly on the Quebec Premier who was unable to settle a problem coming exclusively under Quebec jurisdiction.
Others are also responsible. Members of the cabinet, especially Quebec ministers, are responsible for the mess we are in. The petition was sent to the Governor General in order to be forwarded to the Queen. It was not sent to parliament. The fact that parliament is taking over constitutes a diversion of mail; it is diverting letters from their destination. The petition is addressed to the Queen and when ministers take it and bring it before parliament, this means that they are opening letters before they should and diverting them from their addressee.
Why submit it to parliament? Send it to London, to the Queen, and she will deal with it; it is no concern of ours.
I think the Quebec ministers are more responsible than others, because they had no business, since they know how proud are the people of the province of Quebec, to bring that matter before parliament. The joy was particularly evident on the face of the
June 16, 1965

Leader of the Opposition, because he knew that he could once again sling arrows in the back of the province of Quebec.
Everybody noticed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. Member for Lapointe is continually making these charges without any foundation whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Because of this I have come to the conclusion, as have many Members in this House, that he has been a detriment to Parliament, and he has degraded Parliament ever since he came here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts. This is just another example. It is true, and everyone knows it, even the members of the Progressive Conservative party-two of whom sitting right across from me have left the party-because that is the truth. As for the others, it is just that they haven't the courage to do so-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe has just said that the members from the province of Quebec should protest against the Leader of the Opposition's words, which are insulting toward Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I come from the province of Quebec myself and I cannot help but say that the lies uttered by the hon. member for Lapointe are an outrage against the province of Quebec.
And far from agreeing that the Leader of the Opposition is against the province of Quebec, I say that he is the one who, in the house, has proved to be the most anxious to preserve the rights of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that we seem to be getting away from 22620-159
Quebec Provincial Constitution the substance of the statement made on motions by the Acting Prime Minister. I would ask the hon. Member for Lapointe to cease and desist making these personal allusions. Certainly nothing can be gained in this kind of debate by making this type of allusion. I suggest that the hon. Member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot also used rather strong language-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. Members would admit that we should try to avoid using this type of language. In any event, I would ask the hon. Member to keep in mind the provisions of our Standing Orders and limit his contribution as closely as possible to the subject matter of the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: The hon. Member for Lapointe is a disgrace to Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. I take objection to the fact that you mentioned a while ago that I used strong language. I think I have used only decent language, and I would like to bring to your attention that I have been speaking as a French Canadian who recognizes the facts as they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's standards may be different from other member's. He used the word "lie" which, in my opinion, is unparliamentary.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if you do not like this word, I will readily withdraw it. As for everything else I said, I say once again that it was well within the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Only this word has offended the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind whether the hon. member withdraws or does not withdraw the word "lie"; his insults leave me quite indifferent.


Mr. Valade:: You mean insignificant.


Gilles Grégoire: When I saw him rising on a question of privilege, I thought he was claiming the privilege of sitting as independent.
To revert to the matter under discussion, I would point out that all this occurred because the Government of the province of

June 16, 1965
Questions
Quebec tries to iorce the people of Quebec to swallow the notorious Favreau-Fulton formula. It wants to adopt it despite public opinion.
I suggest that this problem could be settled as follows: let the people of Quebec decide for themselves, through a referendum or an election. Let the people of Quebec decide, and they will be happier to have done so themselves than to have left the decision to Ottawa, London or the Queen of England.
I believe that the best solution would be for the Government to return to Quebec, as soon as possible, all this bundle of documents, so Quebec can settle and solve its own problem. If it cannot settle it, then the people should find better representatives who will settle it, because it is easy to solve to the advantage of the people of Quebec.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many private firms or organizations have submitted proposals for the construction of the P.E.I.-N.B. causeway?
2.	What are the names of such groups?
3.	Has any decision been reached as to whether the causeway will be constructed under governmental or private aegis?
4.	Has any decision been reached as to whether the causeway will carry rails?
5.	If not, when is such a decision likely to be made?
6.	Is construction to commence in the year 1965 and, if so, on what date?
Answer: 1. Representations have been made by Northumberland Consultants Limited and The Island Development Company.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	A decision on the final design or construction of the causeway will not be reached until studies have been completed and the consultant's report has been reviewed.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	See answer to No. 4.


INCREASED SERVICES FOR PLEASURE BOAT TRAFFIC
Mr. Slefanson: What steps has the government taken to formulate a policy to provide services for increased pleasure boat traffic on Canada's lakes and rivers, and when will this policy be implemented?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The formulation of government policy in respect to this matter is under active consideration by the government and when a decision is reached it will be made public.


COURT ACTION BY WALSH ADVERTISING CO.
Mr. Aiken: Within the last 10 years has Walsh Advertising Company Limited of Toronto brought action in the courts against the Government of Canada and, if so, on what date, in what court and with what result was this litigation carried on?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Yes, on December 17, 1957 in the Exchequer Court of Canada. The result was judgment in favour of Walsh Advertising in the sum of $13,000 and costs.


WATER AND SEWER INSTALLATIONS, C.N.R. SECTION HOUSE, AVONLEA, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	Who were the C.N.R. officials responsible for calling tenders for the installation of sewer and water systems in the section house at Avonlea,
Saskatchewan?
2.	Is it the practice of the C.N.R. to install such facilities on C.N.R. properties for appearance sake only?
3.	Are there sewer or water connections available for this property?
4.	What is the deficit in this department of the C.N.R.?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The company's engineering officers in Saskatchewan.
2.	No.
3.	Sewer and water connections are not available on railway property; however, application has been made for an easement through school property to enable connections being made to the town facilities. Approval is expected momentarily and until received, the regular country convenience is being used.
4.	The engineering department is a service department and as such has no income. Expenditures are governed by budgetary control.
ARMED FORCES RECRUITMENT Question No. 533


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Is recruitment for the Armed Forces done by allotment of requirements to areas in Canada and, if so (a) where are these areas (b) on what basis are the allotments made (c) what have been the
June 16, 1965

allotments for each area since 1962, or since this system came into effect, whichever is the more recent?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, recruiting requirements are established annually in total for each service and adjusted from time to time as necessary in the course of the year. For administrative and management purposes recruiting units are assigned target recruiting figures based on past experience of recruiting performance and these are co-ordinated at Canadian Forces headquarters in accordance with the over-all requirement.


AIR CANADA SERVICE TO PROVINCIAL CAPITALS
Mr. Mullally: 1.	Has the government received, at any time, a request for the establishment of regularly scheduled Air Canada service to and from Charlottetown, P.E.I.?
2.	How many provincial capitals are not served by regularly scheduled Air Canada flights?
3.	How many Canadian cities with a population of over 25,000 do not have such service provided?
4.	How many Canadian cities with a population of under 25,000 do have regularly scheduled Air Canada service?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The
Air Transport Board advise that they have no record of any request for the establishment of a regularly scheduled Air Canada service to and from Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Regarding parts 2, 3 and 4, the Management of Air Canada advise as follows:
2.	One, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
3.	26.
4.	6.


DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What officials of government departments or agencies attended the recent meeting in Charlottetown to discuss resource development and allied subjects?
2.	What departments or agencies are planning to participate in development surveys of Prince Edward Island?
3.	What survey projects are contemplated and what will be their scope and area of study?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each such survey?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Mr. A. T.
Davidson, Assistant Deputy Minister (rural development) Department of Forestry; Mr. R.R. McIntyre, Chief, Soil and Water Division, ARDA, Department of Forestry; Mr. J. A. Bergasse, Area Development Agency, Department of Industry.
Questions
2,	3 and 4. The Province of Prince Edward
Island is negotiating at the present time with a private firm for certain rural development surveys, but provincial proposals have not yet been completed and no federal department or agency has been requested to participate. Since the Provincial Government is still considering the type and scope of such development and the recent meeting consisted only of preliminary discussions, no federal department or agency is planning to participate in development surveys of Prince Edward Island at this time.



INFORMATION RESPECTING MONEY SUPPLY

['Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The second part is not applicable.']
Lawrence T. Pennell: 1 and 2. Statistics of notes and coin held outside banks and of the various categories of deposit liabilities of the chartered banks over the period in question may be found on page 298 of the Bank of Canada Statistical Summary for May 1965.



Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did R.C.M.P. officers, including Staff/Sgt. Linden. visit and search the home of Mrs. C. Sauv6 of North Bay, Ontario on or about April 15, 1965?
2.	Did R.C.M.P. officers identify themselves to Mrs. Sauvd when they called on her home on or about April 15, 1965?
3.	Did the R.C.M.P. officers questfon Mrs. Sauve about an article which she had written for possible sale to Maclean's or to the Toronto Globe and Mail?
4.	Did the R.C.M.P. officers take, from Mrs. Sau-v6's office, correspondence and manuscripts?
5.	Did the R.C.M.P. officers who questioned Mrs. Sauve and search her home inform Mrs. SauvS of her right to refuse to answer questions and of her right to have legal counsel present when she was questioned?
6.	Did Staff/Sgt. Linden warn Mrs. SauvS not to attempt to get her article published and, if so, under what authority was this warning given?
7.	Did the R.C.M.P. officers who called on Mrs. Sauve have a search warrant and, if not, under what authority were documents taken from Mrs. Sauve's home?
8.	Have the documents taken from Mrs. Sauv6 been returned and. if not, for what reason?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. S/Sgt. Linden was the only member of the R.C.M.P. who visited the home of Mrs. C. Sauve of North Bay on April 15, 1965. Mrs. Sauve's home was not searched.
Questions

June 16, 1965
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. Mrs. Sauve voluntarily handed over to S/Sgt. Linden her complete file and manuscripts which she had in her possession.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
8.	Yes.


COMPONENTS OF CHARTERED BANK ASSETS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What are the components of the total chartered bank assets as published in the Canada Year Boole and the components of the total chartered bank assets as published in the Annual Report of the Bank of Canada?
2.	If there are any differences between the components of the total shown in the Canada Year Book and the total shown in the Annual Report of the Bank of Canada, what are these differences, and what are the reasons for using a different basis?
3.	What is the subscribed capital of each chartered bank?
4.	What have been the increases in chartered bank assets during each of the following decades: 193444, 1944-54, and 1954-64?
5.	For the years 1934, 1944, 1954 and 1964, what was the total volume of bank notes and coins in circulation?
6.	For these same years, what was the value of bank credit and of the money supply?
7.	At the end of the last financial year, what were the assets of each of the chartered banks?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The components of total chartered bank assets shown in both the Canada Year Book and the annual report of the Bank of Canada are derived from the asset items shown in the monthly statement of assets and liabilities prepared in the Department of Finance and published each month in the Canada Gazette.
2.	The presentation of chartered bank assets in the annual report of the Bank of Canada is intended to facilitate analysis of the Canadian operations of the banks. To this end various foreign currency asset and liability items are "netted" and the difference included as "net foreign assets" whereas in the Canada Year Book these items are shown on both sides of the banks' balance sheet. Also, the annual report of the Bank of Canada does not include certain asset items such as "bank premises" and "letters of credit", changes in which are either quite small or not relevant to the analysis of the domestic banking situation. The only other difference of any importance between the two tables is that "items in transit" shown among the asset

items in the Canada Year Book is "netted" against chartered to bank deposit liabilities in the annual report of the Bank of Canada in order to calculate a figure of money supply free of the duplication of "float".
3.	The subscribed capital of the chartered banks is:
Montreal
Nova Scotia
Toronto-Dominion
Provinciale
Commerce Imperial
Royal
Nationale
Mercantile

30.000.	000
30.000.	000
9.000.	000
69.680.000
66.528.000
12.000.	000
8.000.	000

4.	Increases in total chartered bank assets
as shown by the monthly return of assets and liabilities have been as follows: December 31, 1934-December 31, 1944, $3,540 millions; December 31,	1944-December 31,	1954,
$4,974 millions; December 31, 1954-December 31, 1964, $12,439 millions.
5.	The amount of Canadian bank notes and coins in circulation (i.e. outside banks) was as follows: December 31, 1934, $184 millions; December 31, 1944, $990 millions; December 31, 1954, $1,458 millions; December 31, 1964, $2,254 millions.
6.
December 31, 1934 December 31, 1944 December 31, 1954 December 31, 1964
Money	Bank
Supply(!>
Loans(2) (millions of dollars) 2,132	991
5,892	1,213
10,314	4,237
18,049	10,514
(1)	These figures are one of the commonly used calculations of the money supply, i.e. total Canadian deposits of the chartered banks less items in transit plus notes and coins in circulation.
(2)	Total Canadian loans (including mortgages) of the chartered banks. In addition, of course, banks have other assets such as securities so that their total assets equal their total liabilities.
7.	Total assets of each chartered bank: Montreal, October 31, 1964, $4,668 millions; Nova Scotia, October 31, 1964, $3,051 millions; Toronto-Dominion, October 31, 1964, $2,669 millions; Provinciale, October 31, 1964, $507 millions; Commerce Imperial, October 31, 1964, $5,503 millions; Royal, November 30,
June 16, 1965

1964, $6,232 millions; Nationale, November 30, 1964, $963 millions; Mercantile, September 30, 1964, $125 millions.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Souiham: 1.	What period of time will be involved by federal National Park officials working in conjunction with Provincial Parks officials in selecting a site for Saskatchewan's second National Park?
2.	What are the names and official designations of these officials?


Arthur Laing: 1. The appraisal of potential national park sites in Saskatchewan is currently under way and a report will be completed within the next four to six weeks. However, before a site for this park can be selected, the recommendations contained in this report will have to be agreed to by the federal and provincial authorities.
2.	The Saskatchewan representative in the survey is Mr. R. G. Young, Chief, Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources; the federal officials on the survey are the following four officials of the Natural and Historic Resources Branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources: Mr. H. K. Eidsvik and Mr. C. L. Merrill of the Planning Division; Mr. Dalton Muir, Parks Naturalist; and Mr. T. Fenton, Regional Engineer from the Calgary office.


BURLEIGH FALLS, ONT.-REBUILDING OF DAM
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Is the Department of Transport not going to rebuild the dam at Burleigh Falls on the Trent canal system?
2.	When prices were called for this construction, what were the prices submitted for the cost of rebuilding this dam?
3.	What were the costs for the repairs to this dam?
4.	Do the engineers feel this dam is in a satisfactory condition at the present time?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Not
immediately but the project will remain in future program.
2.	Tenders were called for construction of the gates for this dam and the prices submitted were as follows: Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,	$286,966; Canada
Machinery Corp., Ltd., Galt, Ont., $326,526; Dominion Bridge Co., Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $400,170; Horton Steel Works Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $402,815.
Questions
3.	The cost to repair this dam was $11,057.78 exclusive of cost of continuing labour and government owned equipment.
4.	Yes.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTION
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Have the Canadian automotive companies signed an agreement with the Canadian Government that they will try to conform with the government's desire to have 60 per cent Canadian content in all cars built in Canada, or did they sign an agreement that they will have 60 per cent Canadian content in all cars built in Canada?
2.	Was the Ontario Government consulted when the agreement was made with the United States Government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. The objectives for the industry are set out in tariff item 950 to which the automotive companies are required to conform and in their letters of commitment establishing goals which they have agreed to meet. The former was tabled in the House of Commons on February 16 and the latter were tabled on April 26.
The objectives are expressed in the following requirements:
(a)	Ratio of Vehicles produced to Vehicles sold in Canada: An automotive company is required under tariff item 950 to maintain, in any 12 month period ending on July 31, the ratio of the net sales values of vehicles produced by it to the net sales value of vehicles sold by it in Canada in the 12 months ending July 31, 1964, or not less than a 75 to 100 ratio if its production to sales ratio was less than this in the base year.
(b)	Canadian Value Added requirement in Vehicles Produced in Canada: An automotive company is required under tariff item 950 to maintain the Canadian value added in any 12 month period ending on July 31 which it achieved in the 12 month period ending on July 31, 1964. The meaning of "Canadian value added" is defined in the regulations pertaining to the tariff item.
(c)	Additional Canadian Value Added related to growth of companies sales in Canada: The automotive companies have undertaken in their letters of commitment to increase their Canadian value added in any subsequent 12 month period ending on July 31 to equal a percentage (established in each letter of commitment as 40, 50 or 60 per cent) of the increased sales in Canada of vehicles covered by the program.
(d)	Canadian Value Added increase required beyond growth of Canadian market:

June 16, 1965
Questions
The automotive companies have undertaken in their letters of commitment to increase Canadian value added before the end of the 12 month period ending on July 31, 1968, by $260 million a year beyond the amounts required in items (b) and (c) above.
2. Discussions were held with senior officials of the Ontario Government concerning the Canada-U.S. agreement on automotive products.


ALLOCATION OF OFF-SHORE MINERAL RIGHTS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at the current session of Parliament to convey to the provinces to which they are adjacent the offshore mineral rights which lie outside the boundaries of any province and accrue and belong to Canada as a whole as a result of a recent international convention?
2.	If so, will such legislation include provisions similar to those that were enacted by the Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec Boundaries Acts of 1912, with regard to those vast areas which belonged to Canada as a whole at that time?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is no. The second part is not applicable.


P.E.I.-EXTENSION OF ROADS TO RESOURCES AGREEMENT
Mr. Mullaly: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Government of Prince Edward Island for an extension of the Roads to Resources Agreement beyond the present expiratory date?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the request and what response has the government made?
3.	Under the terms of the present Agreement, how many miles of highway were approved for construction and paving in Prince Edward Island?
4.	To date, how many miles have been completed?
5.	What has been the total contribution by the federal government to Prince Edward Island under this program to date?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2. Yes, the Province has requested a one year extension to the program, and the Government has the matter under consideration.
3.	441 miles.
4.	361 miles.
5.	$5,966,073.


PICTOU, N.S.-REQUEST FOR URBAN RENEWAL SURVEY
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has an application been received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for an urban renewal survey from the various towns in the County of Pictou and the Municipality of the County of Pictou?

2.	If so, has a decision been made on this matter and what is the decision?
3.	If a decision has not been made, when can one be expected?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The application for a grant to assist in carrying out an urban renewal study is under consideration, and it is expected that a decision will be reached shortly.


SILVER DOLLARS ISSUED BY ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Nugent: 1.	What was the number of silver dollars sent from the Royal Canadian Mint to banks in Toronto in the last four months?
2.	What proportion of the total number of silver dollars forwarded to the banks in the Toronto area was made available by the banks directly to the general public?
3.	What proportion was sold to dealers and business firms for re-sale to the public?
4.	At what prices were the coins offered by dealers and business firms to the general public?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. 558,000.
2, 3 and 4. The Mint does not have this information.


AIR CANADA-NAMING OF AIRCRAFT
Mr. Marcoux: Does Air Canada intend to christen their aircraft, particularly those on transatlantic flights, as do most other airlines around the world and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Air-Canada informs me as follows:
Air-Canada have never christened their aircraft and do not intend to do so. This is not the usual practice, as suggested by the question, and it does not offer any economic or advertising benefits. It even has some disadvantages. Every aircraft can easily be identified by a number appearing in a conspicuous place.


AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Mr. Noble: Has the government given consideration to introducing legislation making it compulsory to equip automobiles being sold in Canada with all safety devices currently proven practical and efficient?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It should be emphasized that the Provincial
June 16, 1965

Governments have the responsibility of drafting and enforcing regulations pertaining to the operational standards of motor vehicles. A great deal of work has already been undertaken by various groups to determine the areas where improvement in design or vehicle construction could lead to greater safety which would be useful in the preparation of a safety code. It would, of course, be necessary to obtain the agreement of the Provinces before a uniform safety code could be established for motor vehicles. The Department of Industry would be happy to co-operate with the Provinces in the preparation of such a code.


TENDERS FOR COASTGUARD VESSELS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	When will the first tender for new coastguard vessels be called?
2.	How many coastguard vessels will be constructed in the year 1965-66?
3.	Will the tenders be called on a nationwide basis or on a regional basis?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. In
view of the Department's intention to carry out extensive tank model seakeeping tests before determining the vessels' final characteristics, precise scheduling of tender calls and construction commencements cannot be accurately forecast.
2.	Answered by 1 above.
3.	Action in this regard has not in this case been determined.


APARTHEID STUDY BY B. AND B. COMMISSION
Mr. McCuicheon: Has the B. and B. Commission dispatched a research team to South Africa to study the origins and applications of the policy of apartheid, and the successful supplanting there of English by the Afrikaan language?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I have been informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows: No, the Royal Commission has not sent a research team to South Africa for the purposes mentioned. One of the Commission's research supervisors, Professor K. D. McRae, has recently been in South Africa for three and a half weeks to investigate language policies and practices in South Africa. He was not sent "to study the origins and applications of the policy of apartheid" nor to study "the successful supplanting there of English by the Afrikaan language".
Questions


REPORT RESPECTING HAL DORN AN
Mr. Basford: 1.	Has the government received any comment or
report from Hon. Mr. Justice F. Craig Munro with regard to Mr. Hal Dornan, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, and his actions in connection with Mr. A1 Williamson in the Harry Stonehill application for landed immigrant status resulting from the recent trial of Mr. A1 Williamson, held in North Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such comment or report?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is yes.
The answer to the second part is extracted from the text of the remarks of Hon. Mr. Justice F. Craig Munro after receiving the verdict (Case No. 91-65) Regina vs. Albert Hampton Williamson. It reads in part as follows:
Mr. Dornan appeared as a witness at this trial and told the court what part he took in the matters under investigation at this trial.
While I cannot speak for the jury, I can say that in my view no evidence was adduced before me that in any way reflects discredit on Mr. Dornan, and, in particular, there was no evidence to indicate that he did anything wrong or that he acted in any improper way.
I note in the Press that the Prime Minister has recently expressed his confidence in the integrity of Mr. Dornan. Based upon the evidence at this trial I can only say that such confidence is fully justified.
I make this comment only because in a trial of this nature where names of prominent citizens are mentioned it is possible that some members of the public may be confused as to just who was on trial. Mr. Dornan, of course, was not accused of anything, and was not on trial, and could therefore not receive a jury's verdict clearing his reputation.


SEA COAST EXTENSION, KEJIMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to set aside a section of sea coast for an extension of the Kejimkujik National Park as incorporated in the original plan drawn up in 1962?
2.	If so, how many acres does the government plan to acquire for this development?
3.	Will this section of sea coast be in Lunenburg, Queens or Shelburne Counties of Nova Scotia?
4.	What amount of money is set aside in the estimates to cover this sea coast park extension?


Arthur Laing: 1, 2 and 3.
Yes, if a suitable area can be found and the provincial and federal governments are agreed that it ought to be devoted to national park purposes. In such event it would then be the responsibility of the provincial government to provide title to the area, free of encumbrances to the federal government. However,

June 16, 1965
Orders for Returns
it is not possible to give an estimate of the size of such area at this time. The federal government has suggested a joint federal-provincial survey of the Atlantic coast line from Canso Strait to Yarmouth, to be carried out this summer.
4.	The sum of $10,000 is provided in the current estimates for investigations of potential park areas across Canada.


'HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, JOLIETTE, QUE.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the Government of the Province of Quebec through the provincial Department of Health submitted plans to Ottawa for the construction of a new 500 bed hospital in the Town of Joliette?
2.	H so, when and what will be the cost involved?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The second part is not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mathesor.: 1.	During each of the last ten years of record (a) how many criminal offences were reported (b) what percentage of these crimes remained unsolved (c) how many persons per 100,000 population were convicted of indictable offences?
2.	During the last five years of record, what was the percentage of increase in (a) Canada's population (b) the population of federal penitentiaries?
3.	What percentage of inmates now in federal penitentiaries have been there before?
4.	What policy and/or programs are presently in effect to reduce crime and recidivism?


BUNGLED HANGINGS
Mr. Malheson: 1.	What incidents of bungled hangings appear in the records of Canadian executions?
2.	On what occasions, and in what circumstances has the hanging operation had to be repeated?
3.	On what occasions, and in what circumstances has the condemned person been dispatched after the drop by pressure applied to the body?


EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What is the total number of federal civil servants throughout Canada?
2.	What is the total number in each department?
3.	How many federal civil servants were employed throughout Canada since April 1963, in each department?
4.	What is the total number of employees for each crown corporation?
5.	How many employees in crown corporations and departments are bilingual and how many are unilingual?
[Mr. Laing.l


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What has been the number of employees, year by year in the following Crown corporations since their establishment (a) Canadian National Railways (b) Air Canada (c) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (d) Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corp. (e) Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. (f) Eldorado Aviation Limited (g) Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited (h) Northern Transportation Co. Limited (i) Polymer Corporation Limited (j) The Seaway International Bridge Co. Limited (k) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (1) Canadian Arsenals Ltd. (m) Canadian Patents and Developments Limited (n) Defence Construction Ltd.?
2.	Are employees of these government enterprises of an industrial or commercial nature, subject to the Civil Service Act?
3.	Do these employees enjoy a special status?


MOTOR VEHICLE PUCHASES BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From March 1, 1964 to May 1, 1965, how many motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of Justice (a) manufactured or assembled in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?
Return tabled.


NAMES AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF CENTENNIAL COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired by the Centennial Commission since April 22, 1963?
2.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired by contract by and for the Centennial Commission since April 22, 1963?
3.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired for the Centennial Commission by the Civil Service Commission since April 22, 1963?
4.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired by the Centennial Commission since April 22, 1963 which were appointed by Governor in Council?
5.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired by the Centennial Commission since April 22, 1963 upon the submission of a recommendation of the Secretary of State?
6.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all the Centennial Commission personnel appointed since April 22, 1963 which were recommended to the Secretary of State for employment by the Centennial Commissioner prior to approval by Governor in Council or Treasury Board?
7.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel hired by the Centennial Commission since April 22, 1963 by approval of the Treasury Board following submission of a recommendation by the Secretary of State.
8.	What are the names, classifications, titles and salaries of all personnel released, transferred or seconded from the Centennial Commission since
June 16, 1965

April 22, 1963 by means of submission to Governor in Council, Treasury Board Minutes, Ministerial Order or Civil Service approval?


CLASSIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. Tucker: 1.	How many Canadians served in the Canadian Armed Forces in (a) World War I (b) World War II?
2.	How many in question (1) were bom in (a) Canada (b) United Kingdom (c) other British possessions (d) elsewhere?
3.	How many in question (1) were of (a) Anglo Saxon origin (b) French origin (c) other ethnic origins?
4.	What was the total enlistment in each province?
5.	What was the classification by main religious denomination in (a) World War I (b) World War II?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 44 is acceptable to the Government. I understand that notice of motion No. 32 is to be withdrawn. I ask that motions Nos. 39 and 41 be allowed to stand.



SUSPENSION OF ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Bigg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and documents concerning the suspension and reinstatement of the National Secretary of the Army Benevolent Fund, between the Minister and General Gauvreau or any other department official.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Graffiey:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1960, exchanged between the federal government and the automobile industry relating to minimum safety standards in the manufacture of automobiles and components thereof.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether or not the Government intends to place before the Federal-Provincial
Inquiries of the Ministry Conference on July 19 a plan for compulsory medicare calling for a joint 50-50 federal-provincial contribution and participation of every province, at an estimated cost of $500 million to the Federal Government during the first year. At the same time, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is mentioned in this press statement, is the Government considering the possibility of one or more provinces having their own scheme wholly financed by the province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the right hon. gentleman I would say that this whole matter is under consideration by the Government.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any foundation for what the hon. gentleman must have read this morning, a statement in the Press giving the benediction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this regard? Is there a committee of Liberal Members who are preparing this for the edification of the Government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will understand that I have been rather busy today and have not yet seen this statement.


Michael Starr: Then may 1 put a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether he is Chairman of such a committee studying medicare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the practice in this House is that questions involving Government policy must be directed to the Government.


Mr. Bell:: Why did he say it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unless the Minister in charge of the Department concerned makes other provision, it is not proper, in respect of a matter on which there has been no decision reached by the Government, for a question to be put to a private Member, whether he be a Parliamentary Secretary or not.


Michael Starr: Then I will ask the question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would ask the hon. lady whether the Parliamentary Secretary is chairman of a group of Liberal Members of the caucus studying medicare.

June 16, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the question which my hon. friend is asking me is not one which comes within my purview as a Minister of the Crown.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question is to the Acting Prime Minister and it is with respect to a question I put to him yesterday and to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare replied last night. Was the Parliamentary Secretary speaking for the Government when he said that a medicare plan could be in effect by 1967, or perhaps earlier?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the hon. Member for Hamilton East is, and all of us recognize him to be, actively interested in all matters in this House. I would be very surprised, knowing of his achievements, and of his interest in social and health questions, if he was not to the forefront in his Party in putting forward ideas in which he has a sincere belief. That is why he is in this House, and that is why he is going to continue here. But it must be clear that only a Member of the Government can announce Government policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Parliamentary Secretary, who spoke for the Acting Prime Minister last night, said what he did with the approval of the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question has already been given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: If I have not made it as clear as I intended, then I would say to my hon. friend, who knows the rules so well and who is recognized as an authority, that only a Member of the Government can expound Government policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the statement he made a few moments ago to the effect that Parliamentary Secretaries cannot speak for the Government, whether there is any value

in having them answer for the Ministers during the adjournment debate at ten o'clock. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will consider seeing to it that in future Ministers are on hand for these debates, since there would seem to be very little value in carrying on these discussions at ten o'clock if those who reply for the Government have no authority to do so.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend I know is too busy, as I myself find sometimes, to read fully the rules, but they provide for replies at that hour by Parliamentary Secretaries. The rule is also well established concerning about those who may speak for the Government. My hon. friend was a hard-working Premier for a long time, and when I say "hard-working" I do not mean he was always right, and he knows perfectly well that only Members of his Government could express the official policies of that Government of which he was the head for such a long time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would that not make it more important-


John Carr Munro: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that Ministers be here when-


John Carr Munro: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. Member rising on a question of privilege arising out of an immediate matter?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just prior to the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quoted a statement made by me in the House last night. His remarks prior to that statement asked for a precise date as to when we might expect medicare. He is well aware that my answer was that this would depend upon a meeting of the Federal-Provincial Premiers that is to be held in July, and that I did not know the precise date. I said that in view of the provinces having paramount jurisdiction in this field I did not know what the timing could be, because we must depend on reaching an understanding at that conference. The hon. Member is well aware of that, and that I said I did not know, but that it could be next year or-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 16, 1965


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: I said I did not know, and the House is well aware of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. I recognize the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A short time ago the Acting Prime Minister said that Parliamentary Secretaries could not answer for the Government, but now the hon. Member is answering for the Government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Carr Munro: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member has raised a question of privilege and another hon. Member has answered. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary wants to rise on a point of order. We have only 30 minutes for questions and I would suggest that perhaps we should get on with them.



REPORTED INCREASE IN CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Canadian Medical Association yesterday directed two of its general council committees to begin an immediate investigation as to the possible cause of thalidomide-like deformities of newborn children, suggesting that possibly a thalidomide crisis looms, I should like to ask the Minister whether she has initiated an investigation into this situation, and is any immediate action planned in this regard?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the reports referred to. The one in the Globe and Mail appeared to have an accurate headline, but the one in the Montreal paper seemed to be unsupported by the story.
In these articles Dr. Gingras suggested that there has been an increase in limb deformities not associated with thalidomide, but he goes on to say that the Canadian Medical As-
Inquiries of the Ministry sociation's Committee on Maternal and Child Health has had its attention directed to the question as to whether or not there truly is an increase in this birth deformity.
Since the thalidomide tragedy of 1961-62 my Department has been engaged in two relevant areas of activity. Under the Health Grants Program three Prosthetic Research and Training Centres have been established to deal specifically with the problems posed by congenital limb deformities. One of these Centres is located in Montreal and is under the direction of Dr. Gingras. The deserved reputation of Dr. Gingras' Centre has no doubt resulted in an increased number of cases being referred to that Centre. We are inclined to give most weight to this explanation for the suggested increase, but Dr. Gingras' comment that other factors may be responsible will be pursued with him, as it relates to the efforts to improve our knowledge of the occurrence of congenital anomalies.
In addition, my Department, through its Expert Committee on the Occurrence of Congenital Anomalies, has been concerned with this very problem, that is, methods of improving our information about the numbers and kinds of congenital anomalies occurring in Canada. We are working with our advisors and the Provincial Health Departments in the development of a surveillance system for the purpose of detecting promptly any unusual occurrence of abnormalities. We are, of course, dependant upon the reporting of cases by individual physicians and I am, therefore, especially pleased to note the continuing interest of the Canadian Medical Association in this difficult problem.



AIR POLLUTION-CONTROL OF AUTOMOTIVE EXHAUST GASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that carbon monoxide is contributing to air pollution, and may also be a major factor in the increasing incidence of lung cancer, would the Minister consider introducing legislation which would require all automobiles to be equipped with an anti-smog device?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have always understood, Mr. Speaker, that aside from a consultative role, jurisdiction in the matter of air pollution was with the provinces.
2498	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Percy Verner Noble: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? If this matter is of national concern in the United States could it not be given the same prominence in Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have different constitutional forms in the two countries.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked the Government whether anything was being done to increase the salaries of letter carriers, and I understand that there may be a statement in this regard to be made today by one of the Members of the Treasury Benches.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were directed on Monday to my colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson), with respect to periodic pay review of employees in Group "D", including the postal classes.
As hon. Members know, the Civil Service Act requires the Civil Service Commission to present its recommendations with respect to pay increases for these and other employees to the Treasury Board for final determination of the rates to be paid. The Treasury Board cannot make its pay decisions under the Act until it has received and considered the recommendations of the Commission. Further, the Act provides for consultations to be held between the Minister of Finance or his representatives, and staff associations requesting such consultations.
The present position is that the recommendations from the Civil Service Commission reached the Treasury Board yesterday. These will have to be examined by the Treasury Board staff and a report thereon submitted to the Ministers of the Board. The Postal Workers Brotherhood has also requested consultations with the Minister of Finance, who has undertaken to arrange these consultations once the Civil Service Commission's recommendations have been received and examined. It is expected that other staff associations will also require consultations, and that meetings with representatives of these organizations will have to be arranged.
Hon. Members can be assured, therefore, that the procedures required by law which I have mentioned will be completed as quickly as possible, and that the Treasury Board's decision as to the pay rates to be established

DEBATES	June 16, 1965
for all Group "D" classes, including postal workers, will be made with a minimum of delay. On the basis of past experience and the present timetable of progress, this is likely to be possible about the middle of July.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the decision of the Security Council yesterday and the invitation which has been expressed by the Secretary General, can the Minister tell us whether or not Canada is going to continue with its peace keeping forces in respect of the Cyprus situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Security Council did meet yesterday and we have received a formal request from the Secretary General of the United Nations asking Canada to participate in the UN force in Cyprus for a further six months by supplying a contingent of the same strength as in the past. The Government has decided to accept the invitation and to continue its participation in this force which has rendered such valuable service on that island.


VIET NAM-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY UNITED STATES SENATOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Government of Canada agree with the views and proposals set out this morning by Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States concerning the situation in Viet Nam? If so, has the Canadian Government transmitted its views on this matter to the United States Government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would want to examine carefully the latest declaration of Senator Fulbright. Perhaps tomorrow in the External Affairs Committee my hon. friend, who is the distinguished Vice Chairman of that body, could put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the question asked by the hon. Member for Oxford a moment ago, will the Minister say if he
June 16, 1965



shares the view of the New York Times to the effect that a land war on the continent of Asia is now under way? Have there been any communications with the United States in the past three or four days in this connection that would lead us to believe there is any hope of an arrangement being made whereby a conference would be convened, for every day this situation seems to be es-calcating to an extent that has peril for mankind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a conversation in Ottawa with the United States Ambassador. I am not in a position at the moment to reveal the details of that conversation. He left with me a document that we are studying carefully. This document, however, is not in any way related to any escalation of this regrettable situation. It has to do, however, with steps which the Government of the United States has taken in its endeavours to try to bring about negotiations without pre-conditions.
I may say that on our part we are likewise actively engaged, independently of the United States, in efforts designed to try to bring about some discussions that may, we hope, lead to an easing of the situation in Viet Nam, and that we hope ultimately might have the effect of establishing a basis for negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Minister in a position to say whether Prime Minister Wilson of the United Kingdom has placed before the Government of Canada a plan which, in his opinion, according to the only way I get information through the press or radio, might lead to negotiations? One has to word his question carefully, and that is the reason for the uncertainty in the way it is advanced.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am not in a
position to divulge, until such time as the Prime Minister of Britain himself has made public, any initiative he has in mind; but we are aware of the proposal that is being put by Her Majesty's Government in Britain and it is a proposal that will receive strong support from Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Has it been before the Government yet?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We have it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of National Defence. In view of the fact that 25 CF-104's have now crashed can the Minister inform us as to how many of these are of the operational configuration and how many are of the training type, and whether any of them have been capable of being salvaged, repaired and put back into operation? I think the question is of importance because if they are all of the operational configuration it reduces the number of our CF-104's to a dangerously low level.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. Member that perhaps his question fails on two grounds. It appears to call for a complicated reply, and it may be placed on the order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not believe the reply should be complicated. The Minister should have these figures, which involve only 25 aircraft, in his head.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Does he propose to order that, in future, at least one member of the R.C.M.P. squad in Quebec should have adequate knowledge of how to handle explosives?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.


EXPO '67 REPRESENTATION OF CUSTOMS OF ESKIMOS AND INDIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State relating to Expo '67.
Are the authorities of Expo '67 taking the necessary steps so that the usages and customs of the citizens inhabiting our country before we came here in the 14th century, that is Indians and Eskimos, may be well represented during Expo '67?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This also is a question for the order paper.
June 16. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour which has nationwide implications. In view of the fact that some 18 women and 25 men will lose their employment as a result of the National Capital Commission's expropriation of the Roxborough Apartments, would the Minister inform the House if the Government accepts any responsibility with respect to these unfortunate victims of Government action who, in some cases because of their age, will find it difficult to find other employment?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I will be glad to look into this question and give the hon. Member an answer later.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, following up a request made on Monday last by the hon. Member for Ontario. Can the Minister now advise if the weekly newspapers of Ontario are going to be allowed to participate in publishing the electoral boundaries, and whether or not they will be authorized to do so for next week's publication?


Hon. Maurice Lamonfagne (Secretary of State):: The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ontario has been communicated to the commission.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I should like to debate this at ten o'clock tomorrow night.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: In view of the Secretary of State's recent announcement that colour television will be provided to those areas already serviced by multichannel television, does the Minister have any plans to immediately ask for funds in the

supplementary estimates to provide for television coverage for the over 50 per cent of Canada's area still unserviced?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have already said there was no absolute deadline in this respect, but we were waiting with great anxiety for the report of the Fowler Commission.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: May I
ask a supplementary question in relation to the same statement? The Secretary of State admitted that the extension of service had a higher priority than colour television, so would he not now consider asking for a report of the advisory committee on the extension of service, as he did in connection with colour television?
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of
State): Mr. Speaker, I have already said in the House that there are several millions of dollars in the current estimates for extension of service.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that last week the Minister of Transport announced that the Government has decided to put substantial financial support into the correction of water pollution in Canada, would the Minister consider exempting all materials that go into anti-pollution equipment and plants operated by private enterprise from the 11 per cent sales tax?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's concern with this matter. As he knows, there was an announcement in the
budget speech which will give very considerable relief to private industry in this field, and from the letters I have received, private industry seems to be very well pleased.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the Province of Nova Scotia has stated that, as a result of the Minister's re-
June 16, 1965
[Stage Direction]
cent statement concerning the Municipal Development and Loan Act, it could be that three hospitals planned for construction in that Province may not be proceeded with, and in view of the exceptionally high unemployment rate in the Atlantic Provinces, may I ask the Minister whether he and his colleagues in the Government would give consideration to extending this legislation beyond March, 1966?
Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have already announced the Government's view on this matter.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the tabling on Friday of the report on the operations of the Student Loans Plan, has the Government decided yet on improvements to the plan and, if so, does it intend to bring forward legislation before the new year begins?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the committees of provincial and federal officials that have been steadily working on the plan since its inception have worked out a number of improvements in the administration of the plan which will make it more uniform across Canada, and generally work better. It may be that at some appropriate time it will be desirable to bring in amending legislation, but I have no plans to do so at the moment. The Canada Student Loans Plan in general is working very well indeed.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: As a
supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the extension of any capital grants to universities in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have answered this question before, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know whether I should repeat myself. As my hon. friend knows, we are waiting for the report of the Bladen Commission.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: As a
further supplementary question, could the Minister indicate whether the bursary program announced two years ago is going to be introduced by the Government before commencement of the next college year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am afraid I must say, with respect, to my hon. friend that I am not prepared to announce an important matter of Government policy of this kind at a late hour on orders of the day.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that his party has promised full employment, and also in view of the fact that the Province of Quebec has nearly 40 per cent of the actual unemployment in all Canada, could the Minister tell us what are his concrete plans for securing some employment for those of my co-citizens who are jobless?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF CANADA LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there are appearing in today's newspapers full page advertisements showing the Minister of Labour being interviewed on television giving the details of the Canada Labour Code, may I ask him whether the provisions of the Canada Labour Code apply on Parliament Hill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government is to apply the principles of the Canada Labour Code to all its employees, and I would gather that the employees on Parliament Hill would be in exactly the same position as other federal employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister permit a supplementary question? Is he aware of the figures listed in Monday's Votes and Proceedings showing a number of salary rates on Parliament Hill which are below the minimum wage level set out in the Canada Labour Code?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, so far as I
am concerned that ought to be corrected, and the quicker the better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a further supplementary question, is the Minister going to correct this before July 1?

June 16/ 1965
Income Tax Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour in connection with the full page advertisement published this morning. Is this advertisement being paid for by the National Liberal Federation or by the people of Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The 30 minute period allocated for questions is now expired.


An hon. Member:: Saved by the bell.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and related provisions of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That for the 1966 and subsequent taxation years the income tax payable by an individual be reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of 10 per cent of basic tax or $600 and for the 1965 taxation year by an amount equal to the lesser of 5 per cent of basic tax or $300.
2.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years a taxpayer may deduct in computing his taxable income an amount for the support of a person who was his niece or nephew and who during the year resided in Canada, was wholly dependant upon him for support, and was
(a)	under 21 years of age,
(b)	21 years of age or over and dependent by reason of mental or physical infirmity, or
(c)	21 years of age or over and in full-time attendance at a school or university,
if
(d)	the mother of the niece or nephew was divorced or separated and not in receipt of alimony or similar payments, or
(e)	the father of the niece or nephew was deceased or mentally or physically infirm,
not exceeding $300 if the person was a child qualified for family allowance and $550 if he was not so qualified.
3.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years a taxpayer may deduct in computing his taxable income an amount not exceeding $550 expended by him during the year for the support of a person who was his aunt or uncle and who during the year resided in Canada and was dependent upon him for support by reason of mental or physical infirmity.
4.	That for the 1970 and subsequent taxation years the additional exemption of $500 now allowed to a taxpayer who has attained the age of 65 years be allowed only if the taxpayer has attained the age of 70 years and that for the taxation years 1966 to 1969 inclusive a taxpayer who has attained the age of 65 years but has not attained the age of 70 years be allowed the additional exemption of $500 only if he did not receive a pension under the Old Age Security Act in respect of any month in that year.
5.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years a taxpayer who deducts in computing his income from an office or employment

(a)	annual dues to maintain membership in a trade union or to maintain membership in an association of public servants,
(b)	annual dues retained from his remuneration pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement and paid to a trade union or association, or
(c)	annual professional membership dues the payment of which was necessary to maintain a professional status recognized by statute,
shall not by reason of such deduction be ineligible to deduct the standard deduction of $100 described in paragraph (ca) of subsection (1) of section 27 of the Act.
6.	That for the 1966 and subsequent taxation years a person, the spouse of such person residing with him and previously resident in Canada, or any dependent child of such person, shall be deemed to have been resident in Canada throughout a taxation year if such person was at any time in the year performing services in a country other than Canada under a prescribed international development assistance program of the Government of Canada, and was resident in Canada during a part of the year preceding the commencement of such services.
7.	That for the 1966 and subsequent taxation years a contribution made by a person under the Canada Pension Plan or under a provincial pension plan as defined in section 3 of the Canada Pension Plan may be deducted in computing the income of such person.
8.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years the limitation on the amount related to earned income that a taxpayer may deduct as a premium under a registered retirement savings plan be increased from 10 per cent of earned income to 20 per cent of earned income.
9.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years such part of any amount that would otherwise be included in computing income of a taxpayer as a retiring allowance be deductible if it is paid in the year, or within 60 days after the end of the year, as a contribution to a registered pension fund or plan, as a premium under a retirement savings plan, or to a trustee under a deferred profit sharing plan.
10.	That there may be deducted in computing the income of a taxpayer an amount in respect of an outlay or expense made by the taxpayer in the 1965 and subsequent taxation years
(a)	to a person with whom the taxpayer is dealing at arms length and who is the lessee of property owned by the taxpayer, to obtain the cancellation of a lease on such property,
(b)	for landscaping property used by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income,
(c)	for clearing land or laying tile drainage for the purpose of carrying on a farming business,
(d)	as or on account of the cost of making representations to a government, municipality or other public authority in connection with a business carried on by the taxpayer, including representations for the purpose of obtaining a licence, permit, franchise or trademark,
(e)	as or on account of the cost incurred in investigating the suitability of a site for a building or other structure planned by the taxpayer for use in connection with a business carried on by him.
11.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years a corporation shall be deemed to be resident in Canada throughout a taxation year if
(a)	it was incorporated in Canada before April 27, 1965 and was resident in Canada in its taxation year that included April 26, 1965 or in any subsequent on taxation year, or
June 16, 1965
[Stage Direction]
(b)	it was incorporated in Canada after April 26, 1965.
12.	That with respect to payments received by a taxpayer after April 26, 1965, other than a payment made upon the death of an employee, the amount that a taxpayer may elect to have taxed under section 36 of the Act shall not exceed
(a)	in the case of a single payment
(i)	out of or pursuant to a superannuation or pension fund or plan, or
(ii)	pursuant to deferred profit sharing plan, or
(iii)	pursuant to an employee's profit sharing plan,
$1,500 times the number of years during which the employee, in respect of whom the payment was made, was a member of the plan, or
(b)	in the case of
(i)	a single payment upon retirement of an employee in recognition of long service, or
(ii)	a payment or payments made by an employer to an employee or former employee upon or after retirement in respect of loss of office or employment
$1,000 times the number of years during which the employee, in respect of whom the payment was made, was an employee of the employer who made the payment.
13.	That for taxation years commencing after April 26, 1965, a trust or estate (other than a trust or estate arising on death) that has income from a business carried on by it in Canada may not deduct in computing its income an amount paid or payable to a beneficiary who is
(a)	a non-resident of Canada,
(b)	a non-resident-owned investment corporation, or
(c)	another trust or estate resident in Canada, unless that other trust or estate
(i)	arose on a death, or
(ii)	has been since April 26, 1965 a beneficiary of the trust or estate paying the amount and the trust or estate paying the amount has been carrying on the business since April 26, 1965,
and any amount paid or payable out of the income for the year of the first-mentioned trust or estate will continue to be included in the income of its beneficiary notwithstanding the fact that the first-mentioned trust or estate was not entitled to deduct the amount in computing its income.
14.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years the amount of income derived from a new mine that a corporation may exclude in computing its income shall be confined to income from the operation of the mine by the corporation.
15.	That where a joint exploration corporation acquires after April 26, 1965 a right, licence or privilege to explore for, drill for or take petroleum, natural gas or other related hydrocarbons, the cost of the right, licence or privilege may not be renounced to a shareholder corporation.
16.	That for the 1965 and subsequent taxation years an amount that a taxpayer may exclude from his income because it is consideration for a mining property acquired as the result of his effort as a prospector, or as the result of efforts of a prospector who was employed or financially assisted by him, shall not include a share of profits, a royalty or a payment based on production.
17.	That the Minister of National Revenue with the approval of the Governor in Council may on behalf of the Government of Canada enter into an agreement with the government of a province, under which one government undertakes to transfer to the other, in respect of income tax paid by an individual from whom deductions were made at source as though he were resident in a place
Income Tax Act
other than the province in which he was resident on the last day of the year, a part of the amount deducted or withheld under section 47 of the Act or a similar provision of a provincial income tax act.
18.	That in order to give effect to the provisions of paragraph 1 without reducing the amount of equalization payments to any province a consequential amendment be made to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to adjust the fractions set out therein in the definition of "standard individual income tax'' used in the computation of equalization payments.
19.	That a new section be added to the Act concerning expenditures of a taxpayer for advertising space in a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical having effect substantially as follows:
"12A (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an otherwise deductible outlay or expenses of a taxpayer for advertising space in an issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical dated after Decmeber 31, 1965 for an advertisement directed primarily to a market in Canada.
(2)	An issue or edition of an issue of any newspaper or periodical that is edited in whole or in part in Canada and printed and published in Canada and that was not on April 26,1965 a Canadian newspaper or periodical shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (1), not to be an issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical if
(a)	through the period of twelve months ending April 26, 1965 issues or editions of issues of that publication were being edited in whole or in part in Canada and printed and published in Canada at the usual intervals for issues of that publication and have since that date continued to be so edited, printed and published without interruption except for a reason other than the cessation of the business of publishing that publication; and
(b)	in the case of a periodical, the periodical is similar, in content and in respect of the class of readers to whom it is directed, to the issues or editions of that periodical that were throughout the period of twelve months ending April 26, 1965 being edited in whole or in part in Canada and printed and published in Canada.
(3)	Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to an advertisement in a special issue or edition of a newspaper that is edited in whole or in part and printed and published outside Canada if such special issue or edition is devoted to features or news related primarily to Canada and the publishers thereof publish such an issue or edition not more frequently than twice a year.
(4)	Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to an advertisement in
(a)	a catalogue, or
(b)	any publication the principal function of which is the encouragement, promotion or development of the fine arts, letters, scholarship or religion.
(5)	In this section,
(a) 'Canadian issue' means,
(i)	in relation to a newspaper, an issue, including a special issue,
(A)	the type of which, other than the type for advertisements or features, is set in Canada,
(B)	the whole of which, exclusive of any comics supplement, is printed in Canada,
(C)	that is edited in Canada by individuals resident in Canada, and
(D)	that is published in Canada, and
(ii)	in relation to a periodical, an issue, including a special issue,
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1965
Income Tax Act
(A)	the type of which, other than the type for advertisement, is set in Canada,
(B)	that is printed in Canada,
(C)	that is edited in Canada by individuals resident in Canada, and
(D)	that is published in Canada,
but does not include an issue of a periodical
(E)	that is produced or published under a license granted by a person who produces or publishes issues of a periodical that are printed, edited or published outside Canada, or
(F)	the contents of which, excluding advertisements, are substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical, or the contents of one or more issues of one or more periodicals, that was or were printed, edited or published outside Canada,
(b)	'Canadian newspaper or periodical' means a newspaper or periodical the right to produce and publish issues of which belongs to or is vested in
(i)	a Canadian citizen,
(ii)	a partnership of which at least | of the members are Canadian citizens and in which interests representing in value at least | of the total value of the partnership property are owned by Canadian citizens,
(iii)	an association or society of which at least 2 of the members are Canadian citizens,
(iv)	Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or a municipality in Canada, or
(v)	a corporation
(A)	that is incorporated under the laws of
Canada or a province,
(B)	of which the chairman or other presiding officer and at least 1 of the directors or other similar officers are Canadian citizens, and
(C)	of which, if it is a corporation having share capital, at least 2 of the shares having full voting rights under all circumstances, and shares representing in the aggregate at least 2 of the paid-up capital, are owned by Canadian citizens or by corporations other than corporations controlled directly or indirectly by citizens or subjects of a country other than Canada; and
(c)	'issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical' means an issue that is not a Canadian issue of a Canadian newspaper or periodical."
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last evening I was commenting on some features of paragraph 19 of the resolution before us and had made a direct reference to the so-called brain drain to the United States. I stated that I would comment on that feature in passing. Many of us have heard the expression used, "I don't think that the so-called brain drain to the United States is a one-way street. I believe we can get as much from foreign countries in mental development as we contribute to those foreign countries".
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
But of course Canadians are well aware of the great contributions Canadians have made to the building up of American institutions, and even to the American system of government. The late Mr. Lane, Secretary of the Interior in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet, was a Canadian from the Atlantic Provinces, a man often described as one who would have

made the presidency if it had not been for his birth in this country. There is Dr. Wallace Sterling, a man born, bred and raised in Ontario, a former professor in the University of Alberta, who is making a tremendous contribution to the educational life of the United States as President of the Leland Stanford Jr. University in Palo Alto, California, and most of us are aware of the great and beneficial career of the late Dr. Schurman who was raised and educated in the Maritime Provinces and placed Cornell University in the forefront of modern universities during his lengthy presidency. On the other hand we have men such as Dr. Wilder Penfield of the Montreal Neurological Institute. As I said earlier, I do not consider the brain drain to be a one-way affair.
But in the publishing business one has to consider the products of brains which are sold to the United States, even though the Canadians concerned may continue to reside in Canada. This is the problem which faces Canadian publishers. Not only do the brilliant writers and artists of this country move to the United States in large numbers, because of the greater market for their wares, but many of those who remain in Canada make their livelihood by selling to foreign countries, because of the better rewards they receive for their contributions as compared with those which Canadian magazines can afford.
I can give the committee one definite and striking case which remains in my memory. At the time of the thalidomide cases which were being discussed two years ago, one of the Canadian magazines ran an interesting article on this drug, its discovery, manufacture and use. The article went into these things in some detail. It was quite an interesting one and I learned considerably from reading it. Then a friend of mine suggested I purchase a United States magazine which also had an article on thalidomide and I went out of my way to secure a copy. I can only say that as a Canadian I felt very sorry about the superiority of the United States article as compared with the Canadian article. Indeed I was impressed to the point where I got in touch with the publishers of the two magazines. I found that the Canadian publisher had paid $750 for his article, which was all he felt he could afford. The United States publisher, on the other hand, had paid the brilliant writer who had written the article for him, $7,500. I do not criticize the Canadian publisher in any way. But when United States publishers are able to pay that kind
June IS, 1965

Income Tax Act
of remuneration for a good article, it is easy to understand why the editorial content of many United States magazines is superior to that of Canadian magazines.
I say, too, that Canadian magazines suffer from the brain drain to the extent that writers resident in Canada send their best pieces to the United States, and other countries abroad where they can receive higher compensation. Not only do we have this brain drain to compete against-and when I say "we" I am speaking from the standpoint of Canadian publishers. We have to consider the fact that if a United States magazine wishes to dump back on this country its editorial expenses such as the $7,500 for the thalidomide article, it can do so, and these expenses are spread not only over the magazine's circulation in the United States but also over its circulation in Canada. When the cost of an article is divided by this combined circulation the publisher will find it works out to a great deal less than the cost of an article to the publisher of a Canadian paper with a much smaller circulation restricted to this country. This is nothing but dumping. The entry into this country of magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest, their editorial content supplied almost entirely from the United States side, is a gross example of dumping.
Canadian consumer magazines are in trouble today; there is no question about that. The greatest obstacle to the successful conduct of Canadian consumer publication is the subsidized advertising rates offered by the nationally owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In the United States market, magazines have to compete with television and radio stations, but at least the publishers know they are competing with private businessmen who must set advertising rates high enough to cover their operating costs and provide a profit. In this country, magazine and newspaper publishers are faced with Government subsidized competition from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whose advertising rates need not cover the costs of the operation. If an advertiser refuses to pay the rates offered him, the C.B.C. will simply reduce them to any figure which will attract him. These rates need not cover the cost of operation, because subsidies provided by the Canadian public will make up any loss incurred. Canadian publishers have to establish rates which will attract advertisers to their pages in competition with Government-subsidized C.B.C. advertising rates on radio and
television, and this is not fair. Many Canadian publishers find they cannot secure advertising at rates which cover the cost of publication in the newspaper and magazine fields.
There are other angles in the business v/orld of the publisher which make one wonder at times whether the Government of Canada-and I do not mean this Government specifically; I am talking about governments which have come and gone over the last 20 years-is really interested in developing a Canadian publishing economy. I wonder how many people in Canada realize there are hundreds of foreign publications coming into Canada with a total circulation in the hundreds of thousands. Once these publications cross the Canadian border they do not pay anything whatsoever for carriage through the mails. This is due to a postal convention which operates on the theory that if a foreign publisher sends a magazine into Canada, a Canadian publisher presumably sends a Canadian magazine abroad. The result of this arrangement is that many hundreds of foreign papers come into this country by mail from Britain or France or the United States to addresses in Canada. The country of origin gets all this postal revenue, and once these publications cross the border into Canada we Canadians carry them free from their port of entry to wherever they happen to be addressed. Then the Canadian publishers are given the privilege of picking up the deficit by way of taxation to support the Post Office, which is carrying competitors' material free through the mails. I do not know any other business in Canada which is subject to this kind of competition, where a competitor is carried at your expense.
This situation has existed for many years. Canadian publishers have been protesting about it for years and years. We always get the same story: The Postal Union meets only once every five years; when the next meeting comes around we will fix this up. To my own knowledge these protests have been made for 25 years, now, and five meetings of the Postal Union have been held. But the Canadian Government has never yet straightened out this situation.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that the O'Leary Commission, reporting on the Canadian magazine industry, drew the attention of the country to the fact that these magazines and periodicals are carried free in Canada if they are mailed in a foreign

June 16, 1965
Income Tax Act
country to a Canadian address. On page 97 of the report of the Royal Commission on Publications we find the following:
The Canadian Post Office receives no revenue from the delivery of foreign second class mail because, under the terms of the Universal Postal Convention, all governments are required to handle free of charge whatever is passed to them by foreign post offices. The foreign post office retains whatever payment is made for the service.
The arrangement is reciprocal and therefore, in theory, equitable. Experience has shown, however, that between Canada and the United States theory fails completely in practice. Canadians receive far more second class material from abroad than they send abroad.
And the Royal Commission recommended:
That, in the matter of second class mail, the United States be asked for compensation in the form of terminal payments.
If American publishers were required to make terminal payments it would lighten the tax burden on Canadian publishers, who have to compete at present on such an unfair basis.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But we have a practice in Canada which is known as the American remailing rate. The term is irregular, but it is known as that. Under this system approximately 60 United States publications, either by truck, express or freight send their periodicals into Canadian post offices, largely in Montreal and Toronto. While it is called the American remailing rate, it is better known as the American mailing rate, because they are not being remailed; they are being mailed for the first time.
Postage rates in the United States are so high, if a periodical is going to cross the international border and come into this country, that those who have a tremendous circulation have evolved a system, with the Canadian Government whereby, by sending the papers in bulk into Canada, they put them into Montreal and Toronto post offices and the Canadian Government collects a postage rate which is slightly higher than the Canadian publishers are asked to pay, but considerably below what these American publishers would pay if they had mailed in the United States.
Under this American mailing system the Canadian Post Office picks up about $900,000 a year. If the papers were mailed in the United States the Canadian Post Office would not pick up any revenue, so you might state that this $900,000 a year is better than nothing. But for the $900,000 a year that we now receive from American publications

coming in under the American remailing rate, it is estimated that the cost of handling those periodicals is in the neighbourhood of $2 million. So you have a direct subsidy to these 55 or 60 papers, through the American remailing rate, of about $1,100,000. And these are Post Office figures.
Canadian publishers have competition also with the Americans in the overflow circulation of the American pulp papers that come into this country. If you see Gordon's gin advertised in an American periodical, just because you are reading it in Canada does not mean that the advertisement has lost its effectiveness. If you see Johnson's wax, which is made at one place in the United States, and in Brantford in Canada, advertised in an American publication and you read it in Canada, the impact of the ad is not lost on the Canadian reader. You can buy Johnson's wax just as easily in Canada as you can buy it in the United States. But the manufacturers' reaction when these articles are nationally advertised in a Canadian paper is, "We have a 100,000 overflow circulation in Canada for which we do not have to pay a cent. Why would we pay anything to a Canadian periodical to carry our advertising, when we pay the cost of advertising to the American papers and the overflow into Canada makes it possible for us to reach our market without any additional cost to us?" Canadian publishers have to meet this obstacle of the overflow circulation.
In addition, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its television programs attracts the attention of the public in viewing their programs. This also is paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, including the Canadian publishers. So the Canadian publishers have another opportunity to pay for their competitors with regard to the time they spend viewing this television advertising. The C.B.C. news service is in open competition with the news service of the Canadian Press, which was originated by Canadian publishers in about 1897 and is recognized the world over as a first-class news media. Why do we have to have a Government-subsidized news service running in competition with the Canadian Press, which has been built up at a great deal of expense to the Canadian publishers in this field?
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support paragraph 19. It is an omnibus provision and I believe it should be split into sections. You will remember that the original flag motion when introduced into the House of Commons was split into two parts by the Speaker, and
June 16, 1965

I maintain it was rightly so split. Now we are asked to support paragraph 19, an omnibus clause which would allow Time and Reader's Digest to be classified as Canadian publications. I am not opposed to paragraph 19 if it applies equally to all bogus Canadian editions including Time and Reader's Digest. Steps have been taken to impede the entry into Canada of certain foreign publications, but bogus Canadian editions such as these two are to be granted separate permission. I say to you that making statements that this legislation is going to protect the Canadian magazine industry while allowing Time and Reader's Digest to be circulated in this country is the same as a farmer saying he is going to protect his chicken-house and he will shoot any fox that he sees, but he is not going to shoot the two foxes that are inside the chicken-house when he takes up his place at the chicken-house door with his shotgun. That farmer, if he had any sense, would clean out the two foxes that are inside.
The statement is made that if the advertisements in Time and Reader's Digest are taxed in such a way, the freedom of the press is involved. Freedom of the press is in no way involved. The publishers of these two magazines can send them into this country just as freely as the Financial Post, Newsweek, Atlantic and similar publications send in their copies. Freedom of the press is not involved in any way, shape or form.
The Canadian publishers are talking from the standpoint of dumping, and we are being subjected to this in every manner, shape and form by foreign publications. I have in my hand an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of June 16, 1961. This is an article entitled "A magazine report" which was written just after the O'Leary Report came down. They pointed out that what is happening in the industry are unfair practices and they should be dealt with accordingly, for they are a form of dumping. That verifies what I have stated to you. This form of dumping in the Canadian publishing business has not been readily recognized by all Canadian businessmen.
This omnibus paragraph No. 19, would also, we are told, afford an umbrella type of protection to the Canadian owners of daily newspapers. I can only point out that with the exception of one daily newspaper in Canada, the other 103 have protested against this proposed action of the Government, and this proposed legislation. I am told by some people that a certain publisher in this country wrote a letter to the Government and said,
Income Tax Act
"I have reconsidered my stand on the matter and I do believe your legislation is worth while and for the good of the country". I would like to point out that the publisher of the daily newspaper who wrote that letter is a member of a publishing chain which not only has daily newspapers in its stables but has either the first or second largest stable of trade magazines in Canada. This legislation, which will penalize advertisers who use foreign publications, will be of tremendous benefit to the trade magazines in Canada. Of such legislation I approve. But I cannot sit here and see two publications such as Time and Reader's Digest being afforded special treatment while efforts are made to impede the entry of other publications.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must inform the hon. Member that his time has expired.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish simply to state that I cannot support this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. Member's continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank you sincerely, Mr. Chairman, and hon. Members for giving me extra time. I had intended to speak again, possibly when this matter comes up for further consideration, because I am sure the matter is not going to be settled this afternoon. Since I have stated that I cannot support this resolution simply because of paragraph 19, might I point out to you that I still consider myself a Liberal. I think Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Hon. Walter Harris, the Minister of Finance in 1956, struck a great blow for the Canadian publishing industry when they imposed that 20 per cent advertising tax on Time and Reader's Digest. It was later rescinded by a Government not Liberal. But I say that Prime Minister St. Laurent and Hon. Walter Harris were doing the right thing at that time, despite protests that were received at that time from the United States that this was in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Prime Minister St. Laurent, speaking personally to Canadian publishers, said:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I told the President of the United States that something had to be done for the Canadian publishing industry and I was doing it.

June 16, 1965
Income Tax Act
I sincerely believe that I should tell the present President of the United States that something has to be done tor the Canadian publishing industry; and I submit we should impose the same restrictions on advertising in Time and Reader's Digest that the Government is willing to impose on other publications.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Mr, Cowan:: In discussing the question of Time and Reader's Digest a great deal is heard about their employees in Canada.


Mr. Rock:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. Member's time has expired and he did not get the permission of the Committee to continue.


Mr. Crouse:: He did.


Raymond Rock: There were a lot of noes, and I was one of them.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It was the
understanding of the Chair that the hon. Member had the consent of the committee to continue. If that is not so, I should like to hear so now. Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. Member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I hear noes. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that there were some noes, because I always find the hon. Member for York-Humber very interesting to listen to, not simply because he is a maverick but because he discusses this particular subject of the publishing business well. I have something in common with the hon. Member for York-Humber in that I do not like this particular measure either, and I particularly object to the fact that we are dealing with an omnibus resolution which includes so many things in it. This is not just an ordinary resolution which deals with taxation matters; it goes much further than that. The question of Canadian nationalism and the type of feeling which should exist in this country in the future is involved, as one hon. Member mentioned last night.
We have heard a great deal in the last year or two about the nationalism of French Canada and the future survival of French Canada. I think that this is a similar situation for the country as a whole. What does it

take for a particular national or linguistic group to survive and to maintain the particular feeling which must be built up so that survival is possible?
There are many agencies in the country which are working at the idea of a national feeling. Certainly radio and television are two agencies which are very important in that respect. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if one were determined to wipe out French Canada, one of the things he would do would be to eliminate the broadcasting field entirely. In Canada we have taken deliberate decisions in the past to maintain, at quite great cost, a national broadcasting system. Complaints are made from time to time about how the system operates and how much its costs; but by and large, with very few exceptions, the majority of Members of Parliament reflect the view of the majority in the country that we must have this system for the survival of a Canadian national feeling in the future. We have a great many regulations designed to make sure that Canadian broadcasting is maintained, and we spend a great deal of money on the maintenance of this system.
I would suggest that our school system is another of the agencies which is used to maintain a feeling of Canadian identity-I am very much aware of this because before I entered this House I was a high school teacher of history and the social studies. In this field you work with whatever tools are available. You use textbooks. If popular journals are available dealing with Canada and various aspects of our history, then you use those as well. During my teaching career I have found that periodicals such as Maclean's magazine, Saturday Night and Weekend Picture Magazine were of considerable aid in this regard. If these were not available and we had to rely on United States publications, only, then would the task of the teacher be much more difficult. Therefore anything which strikes at Canadian periodicals I think endangers the type of feeling in our young Canadians which we wish to maintain in this country.
Let us take the case of Maclean's magazine. I have read it for many years. It has had its ups and downs. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not so good. I think it is on one of the down periods at the present time; nevertheless it is one of the best we have in the country. This magazine, published by the Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company, is subsidized by that company. They must take
June 16, 1965

part of the profits which they make from their trade publications in order to maintain the publication of Maclean's magazine and its French edition, Le Magazine Maclean. This company is a private enterprise. It is not a philanthropic organization. It is not a sort of Canada Council and it should not be expected to plough its profits from one side of its operations back into maintaining something which I think is essential for this country.
I do not suppose that many Members of this House would agree that the Canada Council or some other Government agency ought to give this company a direct subsidy to carry on with its work, but I think that the Government could take action to make the task of such companies a little easier at the present time. Certainly the proposed action of Canadianizing Time and Reader's Digest, thus depriving these Canadian periodicals of potential advertising revenue, is no help to them at all.
This has come about in a very strange way. I noticed one of the columnists in the Toronto Star, Mr. Robert Fulford, had this to say in his column on April 27, 1965, and I thought he summed up the situation very well. He said:
Canadian nationalism, as expressed by the federal government, is frequently more eloquent than rational. Consider the broadcasting regulations which limit foreign content on T.V. They were announced in 1960 as a means of promoting Canadian programs but instead the airways are today dominated by Hollywood to an extent few of us would have thought possible in the 1950s.
I realize that is another problem.
In the same way, the legislation on magazines announced last night by the finance minister is a kind of rhetorical shadow-boxing. It can have no seriously beneficial effect.
The magazines of this country-those few which still exist, largely through the generosity or optimism of their owners-say they are dying from a lack of advertising revenue. They believe their revenue has been drained off by Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest.
So Walter Gordon has bravely declared that foreign-owned magazines other than the two said to be causing the trouble will not be allowed to operate on the same tax basis as other publications. In effect he has said: the magazines are dying, so, to protect our national identity, we pass a law making certain that the situation stays as it is.
In this there is a kind of logic which is comprehensible only in Ottawa.
I do not know why this particular clause has been put into the resolution. From all his past statements it is very much contrary to the thinking of the Minister of Finance. It is contrary to the thinking of many supporters of the Government. One can only
Income Tax Act
conclude that the pressure in the Cabinet was such that the Minister of Finance had to bow to the wishes of someone and is loyally going along with the decision which has been made.
I can only assume that this is the same sort of decision which the hon. Member for Verdun had to take when he spoke yesterday. At that time he said, as reported at page 2460 of Hansard:
If somebody could get up tonight and convince me that the elimination of Time and Reader's Digest from the Canadian scene would automatically ensure the future of Maclean's, and other Canadian magazines, I would be the first to vote for this legislation: but somehow I am afraid the problems of Canadian periodicals run a little deeper than legislation to force advertising revenue into the pockets of those magazines.
I think we can make the attempt, Mr. Chairman. I am very sure that if we do not make the attempt the Canadian periodical scene will be dominated by these two foreign-owned publications for a long time in the future. It seems to me that if these two magazines want to be considered as completely Canadian, then let them be Canadian. Let them set up complete editorial offices in Canada and let the complete work of preparation be done in Canada.
I am very disappointed by the operations of Time magazine in one particular respect. I admit that I read the magazine all the time and have done for 25 years or so. I would probably subscribe to it whether it was published in Canada or in the United States, and would do so even if the price were higher than it is. It has a gossipy form of coverage of the news that I happen to like. [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
However, I notice Time magazine publishes an insert for Canada of three or four pages at the beginning of every issue. If you buy Time in the United States you do not see that. There might be some justification for what they are doing, if the Canadian section appeared in the United States issue. They might be able to say that they were passing on to Americans the general news about Canada. As we all know, they are not very well informed on this subject. However, they are not even doing that, because the Canadian insert is simply for the Canadian edition, and I suggest this is something we could well do without if we have to pay the price contemplated in this particular legislation.
As far as Reader's Digest is concerned, I have not seen very much value in this magazine. I sometimes buy the French edition just to practise reading French, but as far as the

June 16, 1965
Income Tax Act
English edition is concerned, it is not of very high quality in my opinion. But that is quite beside the point.
Regarding the proposal concerning newspapers, I think most Members of the New Democratic Party support the idea. We feel that steps should be taken to keep Canadian newspapers under Canadian control, and that this is a matter of some importance. This subject came up in New Zealand some time ago when there was a danger that one or two of the leading newspapers of that country were being considered for purchase by outside interests. The New Zealand Government at the time acted promptly to solve the problem.
I seem to remember from the history of the 1930's that there was some similar trouble in France, and that many of the newspapers of that country were effectively controlled, if not owned, by outside interests. Editorial comments appeared in those newspapers which were very much against the interests of the French people, and in the history of France, leading to their downfall in the war in 1940, this played a significant role.
Very frequently we are criticized by the United States for the type of measure which is proposed here concerning newspapers. I suggest that if the United States was in the same position as Canada and there was a danger that the majority of the publications of that country were to come under the ownership of some other country, the United States *would react very quickly. United States citizens are very protection conscious, and if one of their products is likely to be affected by an import from Canada or some other country, Congress hears about it very quickly. I suggest that if United States publications were seriously threatened, this is what would happen, although that situation is not likely to develop in view of the growth which has taken place in that country and in view of its size and power.
Let us suppose the situation between the United States and Mexico was reversed and there was a gigantic Spanish speaking country of 190 million people living next door to the United States, and the power of that country threatened to dominate the smaller country next door. I suggest to you that the United States would be thinking and advocating action along the lines which are proposed in Canada at the present time concerning both periodicals and newspapers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question?
[Mr. Prittie.l


Robert William Prittie: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not like to interrupt, but does the hon. Member see any threat of foreign ownership of Canadian newspapers at the present time?


Robert William Prittie: I do not know the details of what newspapers are up for sale or who the possible purchasers might be, but certainly that is a real possibility. After all, a newspaper is a business operation and if it is paying well I should imagine there would be foreign individuals or chains, such as in the United States, who might like to buy them out because they are profit-making organizations. However, one must remember that a newspaper is something more than a profit-making organization, it is a journal of opinion, and opinions can be formed through editorial columns.
I might say that I suppose those of us in the New Democratic Party should not worry too much about who owns the newspapers, whether it is Americans or Canadians, because we get whacked regularly in the editorial columns.


Raymond Rock: That is because you are antiAmerican.


Robert William Prittie: That is about the silliest comment I have heard for a long time.
I am concerned that these vital matters of information and publications should be under the control of Canadian nationals, and I will have to add, however bad they may be sometimes. I am optimistic and I always live and hope for improvement in the publishing world.
At the beginning of my remarks I said that the whole question of Canadian nationalism is involved in this question of periodicals, as it is involved in the question of radio and television. It has been said that this country was built in defiance of geography. It has been maintained in defiance of geography, living as we do next to a country which is so powerful. I do not think that country deliberately tries to do many of the things that have been done; that is, deliberately attempts to further Americanize Canada; but that does take place. They just cannot help it, because of their power and the media that they control.
If we want Canada to exist as a separate country and, more important, if we want the people to think and feel as Canadians, then we will always have to make an effort in the future to be Canadian and to promote the feeling of Canadian entity. Certainly we
June 16. 1965	COMMONS
cannot promote this type of feeling of Canadian entity if we pass measures such as those proposed here, which give a privileged position to two United States-owned periodicals. We will simply have done nothing for the Canadian publishing industry by Cana-dianizing Time and Reader's Digest, which at the present time operate in Canada at a very low cost from the point of view of advertising, while depriving our Canadian periodicals of the support they need in order to do the job of promoting the feeling of Canadian entity. I think this is absolutely essential and I am sure every Member of this House must feel the same way, otherwise we would have all packed up and gone to the United States a long time ago, perhaps for better pay. This measure strikes at any work that is to be done in the future to build an effective Canadian periodical publishing industry.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.


Mr. Walker:: May we have the question?


Robert William Prittie: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


AIRPORTS
Robert William Prittie: That, in the opinion of this House, the Federal Government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge or tunnel across the North arm of the Fraser River between the City of Vancouver and Sea Island in the municipality of Richmond for the purpose of assuring uninterrupted access to the Vancouver International Airport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see a Canadian-built tunnel in the area in question. This has been a continuing problem which was debated in the House over a year ago, but there has not been very much progress made since that time.
The Vancouver International	Airport,
which is the third busiest airport in Canada serving the third largest metropolitan area of the country, is in a unique position. For the benefit of Members who have not had the good fortune of visiting the ever green playground, perhaps I can draw a comparison. If the airport in Toronto, that is the main International airport, were situated on Toronto Island and if that airport were connected to the city by a narrow, two lane
DEBATES	2511
Access to Vancouver Airport swing bridge which opened when tugs or barges came by, you would have some idea of the problem with which this particular area is faced. You can imagine the outcry that would be heard in the capital city of Ontario if, from time to time, this bridge were held open for a period of two hours while traffic was backed up for miles.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The Vancouver International Airport is situated on a small island called Sea Island. Now, this island cannot be reached from the mainland, from the Burrard Peninsula on which the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster are situated, unless you go to another island called Lulu Island. You cross a bridge to that island, and then you cross a second small bridge to get out to the island on which the airport is actually located.
There have been problems in the past in connection with this bridge, Mr. Speaker. I have not kept a catalogue of the number of times the bridge has been out of commission and traffic has been held up. However, I should like to quote briefly from an article which refers to one of the worst examples of traffic being held up. I am quoting from the Richmond Review for April 19, 1962. The article describes the traffic tie-up which was caused by the failure of this bridge to function properly, and I quote:
Sea Island was cut off from Canada for 21 hours on Sunday.
A mechanical failure Is believed responsible for the jamming of the swing span on the Moray channel bridge. The bridge was opened for marine traffic, but refused to close completely.
While the defect was investigated, traffic backed up from the crossing to the airport. On the other side of the bridge, traffic piled up to the toll gates of the Oak Street bridge, where motorists were advised to take another route.
Incidentally, there is no other route to the airport.
Traffic flow was eventually restored before the fault was corrected, after traffic officials determined that the bridge was safe for traffic in spite of being two feet out of line.
Two flights were held up to allow delayed passengers to make connections. One, a Viscount flight to Edmonton was held up 40 minutes, and another Viscount to Victoria and Seattle was delayed 20 minutes.
Incoming passengers merely sat at the airport and fumed.
There is another heading in this newspaper which refers to the Liberals asking for quick action. The Liberal candidate for Burnaby-Richmond at the time commented on the situation and said that Ottawa ought to do something about it. He noted that Mr. Chev-rier, speaking in the House on this subject
June 16, 1965

Access to Vancouver Airport introduced by the previous Member for Burnaby-Richmond, had said something should be done about the situation. So, we have this problem, and I suggest that if the problem existed at Dorval Airport near Montreal or Malton Airport near Toronto, we would have heard a great deal more about it. The fact remains that the third busiest airport in Canada serving the third largest metropolitan area in Canada is tied up because of this bridge. This is quite important because of not only the possibility of delay for ordinary air line passengers, but the question of safety is involved. The main hospital in British Columbia is Vancouver General Hospital and it often has to receive people flown into the Vancouver International Airport from many parts of the Province. Someone may be seriously hurt in a logging accident. When he is flown to the airport, he has to get to the hospital as quickly as possible. If this bridge is out because of some passing marine traffic or because it has been hit by a barge, we have a very serious situation.
As I say, the problem is there and it has been there for several years. It is not a political matter so far as I am concerned. My predecessors who have represented Burnaby-Richmond, a Conservative and a Liberal, have both brought this matter to the attention of the House in the past. About a year ago the Federal and Provincial Governments did agree to undertake an engineering study to determine if a bridge or a tunnel were feasible at this point. The cost of this study was to be shared 50-50 by the two Governments. The report resulting from that study has not been published as yet, although I think they have had a great deal of time. Many local organizations are interested in this subject, as you would expect. The council of the municipality of Richmond, the Chamber of Commerce of Richmond, the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Sea Island Community Association, are all interested.
Recently the Richmond Chamber of Commerce wrote to the Deputy Minister of Transport about this subject. They wrote to the Minister of Highways in British Columbia as well. The reply from the Deputy Minister of Transport was dated April 29, 1965, and I quote:
With reference to your letter of April 23rd, addressed to the Minister of Transport and requesting a copy of the survey made on traffic flow from Vancouver to Sea Island, it is suggested that you direct your request for a copy of this report to the Department of Highways in Victoria.

While it is true that the cost of the survey is being shared equally by the Federal Department of Transport and the Provincial Department of Highways, the survey was initiated by and is being prepared under the direction of the Highway Department and, at the time of writing, we have not received the report on the second half of the study.
Then, they wrote to the Minister of Highways of British Columbia, Mr. Gaglardi. They received a reply dated May 7, 1965, and I quote:
This is still under study in conjunction with the City of Vancouver and necessarily has to tie in with urban street developments throughout the whole area. For this reason no final decision has been made and additional data is required before any further planning can be carried out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some Members may wonder how the Federal Government becomes involved in this matter. Well, the airport is owned by the Federal Government and operated by the Department of Transport. Not only do they own the airport but they own almost 75 per cent of the land on this island. There remains on the island two residential subdivisions and a small amount of industrial area, but the largest part of the island is under federal control. I imagine that in the future, as we approach the day when supersonic aircraft will be operating, the Department will require more and more of the Island, so that eventually they will own it all. The Government is the owner of this property and administers the airport. The Government must feel some responsibility for making sure that passengers arriving at the airport from points in the United States, Latin America, Eastern Canada and Europe by direct flight can get off this small island and into the city or the surrounding municipalities. Similarly, people leaving Vancouver to go to many parts of the world should be able to leave without having to worry about a two-lane bridge that may be out of operation.
The Federal Government therefore is the owner of the property and the operator of the airport. For these reasons, I feel they have a definite responsibility to do something about access to the airport. I do not want to suggest the Federal Government has the entire responsibility. Generally speaking, bridges, tunnels and highways are a provincial responsibility. Certainly, the Government of British Columbia should accept some responsibility in this regard. The Government of British Columbia prides itself on the number of highways and bridges it has built. Those of us who live in the metropolitan-urban areas have a feeling the Gov-
June 16, 1965
ernment is rather more generous with other areas of the Province than they are with the more heavily populated lower mainland region from which they get the greater portion of their gasoline taxes.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A year ago the Minister of Transport said that the Federal Government probably would not participate in the cost of building the type of connection requested here. He made some remark about the great big beautiful debt free Province of B.C. and that it could afford this itself. However, following that, the Department did agree to go 50-50 with the Provincial Department of Highways in the engineering survey.
Since that time the Minister of Transport has moved a little further. I imagine he has been prodded somewhat by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) who is a native of Richmond. His riding is on the Vancouver side of the area I am speaking about, and he has stated publicly and in letters to organizations that he feels such a tunnel should be built. He has had some success with his colleague, but not complete success.
The Minister of Transport was out there at the end of March, and he had this to say as reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 30, 1965:
Transport Minister J. W. Pickersgill said here today the Federal Government has made no decision on a suggestion that a tunnel be built between Vancouver International Airport and the city.
The Minister said in an interview studies are being made regarding better access to the airport, but no decision has been made as to whether a tunnel or a bridge or anything should be built.
"A study has been going on for some time, and a first report completed," he said.
"I will be studying that report when I return to Ottawa, and then a second study must be undertaken, presumably to determine cost."
Pickersgill was commenting on an announcement here last week by Northern Affairs Minister Art Laing that the government is considering construction of a tunnel.
The Minister said Laing was merely expressing a personal desire to see a tunnel built, rather than a bridge.
"I don't disagree with him that good access is needed to the airport," Pickersgill said, "but cost will be a large determination."
This problem becomes more urgent and there is the ever present danger of the bridge being out when it is needed at a vital time should an emergency arise.
Construction has begun on a large new terminal at Vancouver International Airport, and it is needed because there is increasing business there. I believe action should be taken now to begin the construction of a better access from the populous part of Van-22620-1601
Access to Vancouver Airport couver, and surrounding cities, to the airport.
The new terminal building is scheduled for opening in 1967. I doubt very much whether we can have a new crossing to Sea Island Airport ready at that time, but this very important decision must be taken quite soon. Between the time a decision is taken and plans are drawn up, and the time construction is carried out, a large amount of time elapses. Therefore I urge that the Minister of Transport ask his officials to conclude some type of negotiations with the Provincial Department of Highways on a cost sharing basis, so that engineering plans can be started and so that construction of this very necessary link be undertaken before many months pass.
The Minister of Transport said it all depends on the cost. If the Government admits it has a responsibility in this connection, being the owner and operator of the airport, then it has to bear part of the cost in agreement with the Government of B.C. I know agreement with B.C. may not be easily come by, but this is one of the tasks of government, to negotiate and obtain a proper cost sharing agreement so that the link from Vancouver to the airport can be begun and so that we will not suffer this ridiculous situation for many more years.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from the west coast I do not hesitate to endorse the general position taken by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond Mr. Prittie) that we should have improved access from the built-up areas in Vancouver to Vancouver International Airport.
We read a good deal these days about the collapse of time and space. We know we can travel to any part of the world in a matter of hours, and it is a matter of some frustration to many of us that once we are grounded, once we are reduced to surface travel, the time elapsing between arrival at an airport and one's final destination is often comparable to that which one has spent in the air.
Some 50 years ago it took five days to cross Canada from Montreal to Vancouver. Today, even allowing for a half hour stop at Toronto, one can get from Montreal to Vancouver in approximately five hours. I do not want to imply that in a foreseeable period of time we will be able to span that distance in five minutes, but certainly if the supersonic air transport era arrives, in 10 or 15 years time it will be possible to get from Montreal to Vancouver non-stop in perhaps an hour and a half. For this reason delays

June 16, 1965

Access to Vancouver Airport on the ground become of increasing importance.
I would suggest that we as a nation can afford to invest much larger sums of money-in improving our avenues of surface transportation between the principal gathering points in downtown areas and the airport terminals. In this country air passenger miles have increased no less than fivefold over the last decade. This is a fantastic rate of increase. Air travel is relatively becoming more important than passenger rail travel, and is gaining on road transportation. Many more of the average Canadian's transportation dollars are going into air transport, and this is significant. We have some 5 million Canadian air passengers moving about the country each year. The proportion of the total population which is now flying from one point to another in Canada is substantial, and I submit is growing rapidly.
The sums of money involved in improving access routes to air terminals are not necessarily very large. They are certainly not large in relation to the sums of money being spent on subsonic, and in future years supersonic aircraft. They are not large relative to the sums of money being spent on the terminals themselves.
The tunnel which conceivably could be built under the north arm of the Fraser River, which would permit one to arrive at the Vancouver air terminal and 20 minutes later be downtown in Vancouver, might cost in the order of $6 million. This $6 million figure is small relative to the current investment Air Canada has in planes alone, which is something of the order of $300 million. This $6 million for the tunnel is also relatively small as compared with the estimated $23 million cost of the new air terminal building in Vancouver, which will be completed in our centennial year, 1967.
I suggest that if air pasengers had their choice they would put up with the present air terminal in Vancouver if they could get downtown in perhaps less than half the time, perhaps a third of the time that it takes them now to get from the terminal to the centre of the city.
I shall not attempt to describe the location of the proposed tunnel, because the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond has endeavoured to do that, but I would like to answer somewhat more specifically some of the points he has raised. In particular, he has asked for information.
Traffic circulation between the downtown Vancouver area and Sea Island on which the
International Airport is located, and the adjacent Lulu Island, has been a matter of considerable concern for a number of years. In view of the anticipated growth of airport operations as indicated in economic studies of the area-and in passing I may mention that the Stanford Research Institute recently completed a very extensive review of the Vancouver area-the situation can be expected to become acute within a short period, particularly as the present access to the airport is solely by means of one swing bridge which must also cater to the needs of the river traffic.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In 1963 the Federal Government entered into an agreement with the Province of British Columbia whereby the Province would undertake a study and make a report on the feasibility and costs of a bridge or tunnel crossing the north arm of the Fraser River between the mainland and Sea Island. The Federal Government undertook to bear 50 per cent of the cost of such a study, such a contribution not to exceed the sum of $30,000. It was stipulated in the agreement that there was no undertaking, implied or otherwise, that the Federal Government would bear any of the cost of the construction of the crossing if it was built.
A firm of consulting engineers, Phillips, Barratt and Partners of Vancouver, appointed by the Highways Department of the Province of British Columbia did in January 1965 submit to that Department Part A of the Sea Island access study covering traffic forecasts and alternate routes. Part A of the access study was forwarded to the Minister of Transport by the Provincial Minister of Highways on March 23, 1965 requesting comments on the report. The Minister of Highways indicated he was prepared to initiate the second phase of the study concerning preliminary engineering and capital costs estimates for alternative crossings at Hudson Street, provided such action was agreeable to the Minister of Transport. In a reply dated April 14, 1965, the Minister of Transport here concurred in proceeding with Part B of the access study, namely the engineering cost study. In discussion with the officers of the Highway Department the target date for receipt of part B of the report from the consultants has been set for the end of September 1965.
I should like to summarize a synopsis of Part A of the report dealing with the traffic and the congestion expected to occur on the

June 16, 1965

present bridge access to the Sea Island airport. Both the Oak Street and Middle Arm bridges and their approaches are now loaded to their practical capacities, and during peak hour traffic flows their capacities are exceeded. This traffic growth will soon make conditions on the existing Middle Arm Bridge intolerable. A new four lane traffic facility, either a bridge or a tunnel, should be located across the North Arm of the Fraser River to accommodate the bulk of airport traffic which originates from or is destined to Vancouver. This location would not only represent the most direct route to Sea Island but would also help reduce traffic flows across the existing Oak Street bridge. The most feasible locations for this crossing are at either Hudson or Granville Streets. Department of Transport regulations, which limit obstructions on and in the vicinity of Sea Island, make a bridge crossing along the Granville Street route absolutely prohibitive. A high level bridge on the Hudson Street route is, however, marginally possible.
Later in the synopsis it is stated that in view of the many location, timing and cost uncertainties concerning the proposed Stanford freeway system for Greater Vancouver, it is not recommended that the new crossing to Sea Island be planned and designed as an integral part of a projected North-South Freeway. However, provision for a connection between a new Sea Island Crossing and a future North South Freeway can and should be made.
That is the position. The preliminary traffic study has been completed. It indicates there is an urgent need for either a tunnel or a bridge. It suggests that a four lane tunnel or bridge be built in the near future. The second phase of the investigation, namely engineering costs and related studies, is now under way and should be completed later this year. Obviously this is a subject which is of concern to the City of Vancouver and to the surrounding municipalities and, hence, to Greater Vancouver. It is of concern to several of the outlying municipalities which I represent-the districts of West Vancouver and North Vancouver, and the City of North Vancouver, which include among them the highest income municipalities in Canada. Their populations include people who travel a great deal more than most Canadians. They travel not only to different parts of Canada but to different parts of this continent and across the ocean, and in doing so they use airport facilities a great deal and are directly con-
Access to Vancouver Airport cerned with improvements in ground transportation.
The province, which is primarily responsible for highway construction, is obviously directly involved. However, I suggest that the Federal Government also has a responsibility in this connection. As a result of a transaction completed with the City of Vancouver a few years ago, it now owns the Vancouver International Airport. It is responsible for certain air force operations; and the Department of Transport operates on Sea Island. Moreover, the Department is primarily responsible for air transportation in this country and it must, therefore, concern itself with the physical facilities associated with such travel. In recent years, particularly in post-war years, we have done very well in respect to the vehicles of travel, such as aircraft. We have several very fine fleets which are relatively up to date. Air terminal facilities in this country are improving rapidly-I have in mind the airports at Montreal, Malton, Halifax and so on. We as federal taxpayers have invested more than $100 million in new construction to make it easier for passengers to arrive, board aircraft and be discharged from them.
I think a logical extension of this immense investment would be to take an interest in the access facilities to downtown areas so as to help people to travel more rapidly from these airports to their final points of destination. This calls for co-operation between the municipalities concerned and the Provincial Government, as well as between the Provinces and the Federal Government. In a very practical way I think we shall see another exercise in co-operative federalism in this field. I trust we shall see it at the Vancouver International Airport in the near future. I know we shall have a fine new air terminal in Canada's third largest and third busiest airport and I trust we shall also have by far the most efficient means of transporting passengers to outlying communities.
It is possible that a new tunnel-and I would certainly advocate a tunnel rather than a bridge-would enable passengers arriving at the airport to get to downtown Vancouver in 20 minutes. This would be a remarkable situation and a great improvement compared with the hour, or several hours sometimes, it takes to reach airports in other parts of the world from the centres of the cities they chiefly serve.
June 16. 1965

Access to Vancouver Airport
I, personally, as a private Member, intend to press for the construction in the near future of a $6 million four-lane tunnel under the North Arm of the Fraser River to speed up surface transportation to Vancouver International Airport.


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: The resolution presented by the Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) reminds us that in these days of rapid growth, one of the most difficult problems facing large cities is that of transportation. This is especially true of Vancouver because of the geographical features of the lower mainland. All motor traffic comes from the South or the East. The area we are now discussing and with which I am very familiar contains two islands, Lulu Island and Sea Island, formerly farmland but now largely subdivided into private homes occupied by people who work in Vancouver.
The suggested bridge or tunnel across the North Arm of the Fraser River would provide an alternate route for thousands of motorists during the morning and evening rush hours. We should remember, in this regard, that after the opening of the Oak Street Bridge several years ago the old bridge to Sea Island was demolished and never replaced. Another condition that merits examination is the fact that heavy traffic from and to the United States will continue to increase and create a bottleneck where cars leave the present bridge and enter Oak Street in Vancouver.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However, the most compelling reason for the Federal Government giving favourable consideration to the resolution before us is the need of providing a second route to the airport on Sea Island. Today there is not only the possibility of inconvenience and delay for thousands of passengers, but the ever present danger of inability to deal with emergencies which may arise at any time. Surely it is the responsibility of federal authorities to plan ahead and to recommend facilities that will assure uninterrupted access in the future from Vancouver to the International Airport.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this resolution brought forward again this year. As the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) mentioned in his opening remarks, the resolution was put on the order paper last year; it came forward and was debated. Now a year has rolled by and we are a little nearer

to having a new airport built in Vancouver, but there is still time to debate this resolution again.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it must come as something of a surprise to you to learn that while we are on the eve of letting tenders to build a very large airport terminal in Canada's third largest city we have not yet settled the question of how to get to it. Here is the airfield where it has sat now for many years since the airport on Sea Island was taken up first for R.C.A.F. purposes and as a local airport, and it has expanded until now it has become one of the great major airports of the country. The question of how to get to this little island in the mouth of the Fraser is still a critical question, and is apparently still an unsolved question as we come right to the moment when we are about to build this air terminal.
One would expect, naturally, that the Province, which is responsible for the building of roads, and the municipalities, which are responsible for the building of local roads, would long since have taken up this question and we would not now have to be threshing away with surveys such as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis) mentioned in the course of his remarks, to determine whether to put a bridge and road through to this important airport. If the Province cannot get around to doing what the Province ought to do, supplying highways to the important points in British Columbia, I am sure the task will eventually fall back upon the Federal Government. The Federal Government will not let the people of Vancouver go begging one way or another, and will find some way of seeing that the road and the bridge are built.
If they do not, and these two jurisdictions are quite unable to do this, we will have a magnificent airport sitting out there on Sea Island and there will be no adequate access to it, except over the overcrowded Moray Channel approach. That will be a great day indeed for Okanagan Helicopters. This company, one of the biggest helicopter companies in the world, has its home base and head office on Sea Island, where this airport will be, and I am sure they would be delighted to lift all the passengers from the City of Vancouver to and from the airport if the Federal Government and the Provincial Government or the City of Richmond cannot figure how to get there by road or bridge.
When the hon. Member for Coast-Capilano, the Parliamentary Secretary, mentioned the
June 16, 1965

traffic that is growing on the Moray Channel bridge and which will shortly overcrowd that bridge, I reflected on how many times I myself had been held up going to and from that airport. One can recall the times not very long ago when the bridge, which is a swing-bridge, was opened to permit fishing vessels to go underneath. It is a narrow bridge. The road must converge at that point into one single stream of traffic in either direction in order for one to reach the airport or to come back from the airport. So that traffic cannot move very swiftly. Unless you hit it at rush hours, it is not too inconvenient; but at rush hours the traffic may back up until it is standing for several blocks in either direction waiting to get across the Moray Channel bridge. And at times when there is really some great occasion to move out to the airport, such as for a reception for some great person who comes to visit Vancouver, or something of this kind, then the road is plugged completely and vehicles stand there with the drivers pumping on their horns and hoping against hope that the traffic will move, wondering whether they will get home for dinner or whether they will have to camp out. So it is most important indeed that this matter be taken up along with the question of building a new airport at Vancouver.
While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I want for a moment to digress. This is an hour of the day in which digressions seem to occur, and perhaps Your Honour will permit a digression in connection with the building of an airport at Vancouver. A number of us in Vancouver have been taking up with the Minister the question of airport art. As you know, it is the custom today to put into all the new airports in Canada some contentious art work. In the airport at Edmonton there is a great splash of a mural on the wall which looks as if an aircraft had "pranged" there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: In the new airport at Regina, I think it is, they have some children's blocks placed upon the wall, painted in different colours, as children's blocks generally are, and that looks quite interesting. In the airport at Winnipeg they have some bars up and down and a few of them across, and that is a very interesting design indeed. I am sure an artist of great renown built that and sold it to the Department of Transport at a considerable price. In the airport at Toronto they have some rather different things. This shows the broadness of our national culture.
Access to Vancouver Airport There on a steel pole one can see several shafts or rods pointing in different directions, which gives one a bit of a feeling of flight. However, if flight should fail you can go down to the other end of the airport and there you can find what might be best described as junkyard art. This is that field of sculpture which embraces such things as old, cast-off engine blocks and things like that which have been moulded into some pleasant and appealing pattern. They have one or two of these in that airport.
We in Vancouver, Sir, thought a little differently about this. We had a notion, strange and antique though it might be, that we would like to see something representative of the culture and work of the coast. We thought in terms perhaps of some of the magnificent trees, and so on, which grow in our forests and which adorn many of our buildings and public edifices in Vancouver. We thought of our magnificent mountains; we thought of some of the great Indian art which has become a part of the culture and the heritage of the coast, and we went to the Minister and officials of the Department of Transport. I went along with other people from Vancouver interested in this matter to see them about it. Sir, we met with considerable resistance. No one really wanted to think that when you alighted in a city like Vancouver you should be unnerved by a regional feeling. The thought was that you should get a grip on the whole of Canada, as it were, as you stepped into the airport and should not see just the great mountains of the Pacific, the feeling of our forests, our woods and so on. But like that aircraft which "pranged" at Winnipeg, or those twisted engine blocks you can see at Toronto, you have a feeling of the whole country from junkyard to junkyard, from city to city, from Atlantic to Pacific. So we badgered them to some considerable extent. Gradually I felt some life was creeping into the Ministry and that, indeed, they might listen to us. I had hoped that when this airport was finished and the gates were opened you could go there and find, to the astonishment and dismay of art circles from coast to coast, something which you could recognize and which suggested to you that this is the great and broad country of the Pacific, something which we could all understand and appreciate.
[DOT] (5:40 pm.)
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is a digression which you will permit me, but I will try to return in a moment to the topic at hand. This
June 16, 1965

Access to Vancouver Airport airport is important not only as the western terminus of Air Canada, not only as the home and base of a great commercial helicopter company, to which I referred a moment ago; it is also the head office and central terminal of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I was very interested to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) announce in the House a few days ago the new policy for dividing the overseas operations of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines into regions. As far as Canadian Pacific Air Lines is concerned, which will very shortly be a world girdling air line, one of the very few, its head office and base will be at this very airport to which we find such difficulty of access today. It will be bringing passengers and cargo from the Orient, from South America and from around the world through its head office and through this airport at Vancouver.
It is for this reason, as well as for the reason of serving other major Canadian air lines such as Air Canada and the local air lines which serve the interior of the province, that we need in Vancouver more than a single lane for traffic travelling in each direction to and from this airport. This is why it is essential that the planning of this access gets under way concurrently with the planning of this great terminal, so that when the gates of the terminal are opened we do not find ourselves as frustrated as we have been in the past with the inadequate road and bridge accommodation which is provided today.
I think that these remarks, brief and divergent though they may be, may give the House some idea of the importance of this issue and why my hon. friend from Burnaby-Richmond has seen fit to bring the question back in the form of the motion now before the House this day. I hope that this debate, which will be recorded in Hansard, will be read by the Minister, and indeed, more than that, will even be read by Mr. Gaglardi, the Minister of Highways of the Province of British Columbia, whose magnificent roads stretch almost everywhere except in adequate size to Sea Island, where we need a road, bridge and a new airport.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to hear a government member telling us how much he appreciates the efforts of a Social Credit minister of British Columbia in order to carry out splendid projects in road construction. I see the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) applauding. This shows perhaps

that, like us, he appreciates highly the work done by the Social Credit government in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, the object of the notice of motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) is the building of a bridge or a tunnel across the North arm of the Fraser River between the City of Vancouver and Sea Island in the municipality of Richmond for the purpose of assuring uninterrupted access to the Vancouver International Airport.
In my opinion, this request is far from being extravagant. It is realistic and very worthwhile. I think the house should pass the motion right away, because it is not a matter of politics or partisanship; on the contrary, it is a question of giving to a province a service of which it was deprived up to now.
We are not well acquainted with British Columbia and this is something which is not done in the province of Quebec in spite of the fact that we have already asked for a bridge or tunnel between Quebec City and Levis. We have no objection to the construction of a bridge or a tunnel within the limits of British Columbia. The hon. member is certainly right and his notice of motion was undoubtedly submitted as a result of requests from his constituents and citizens of Vancouver or people living in the vicinity of the Vancouver airport.
Mr. Speaker, we heartily support this motion and we hope that members of the government will not object to the building of a bridge or tunnel-whatever is the cheapest, because the burden of Canadian taxpayers is heavy enough as it is-in order to serve adequately the people from this area of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since it is 5.50 p.m. and our group does not wish to prevent the passage of this notice of motion or the carrying out of this project, I shall speak no further.
Before resuming my seat, I shall merely add that we fully endorse the request of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Robert William Prittie: You are very generous.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be British Columbia day in the House, with one exception. I believe the hon. Member who has just spoken has probably been out over the mountains and has begun to realize what a beautiful and great province
June 16, 1965

we have. I am, generally speaking, in agreement with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). This would require, of course, another large expenditure on the part of the Federal Government in respect of what is essentially a provincial or municipal responsibility-more particularly provincial, as municipalities are creatures of provinces.
It should not be forgotten, as so often it
is, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia is only part of that Province; that is, British Columbia consists of something more than just the lower mainland and Vancouver. Other expenditures are required in areas where the wealth of that Province is actually developed. In this regard there is a requirement for great expenditures on the part of the Provincial and Federal authorities in order to carry out joint programs. I would have thought that this matter, together with many others, would have been an excellent subject for discussion by the representatives from British Columbia, if not at the Dominion-Provincial Conference itself, at least with others here in Ottawa when the British Columbia Cabinet members and the officials are here attending that Conference. We have been informed, however, at least through the press, that the Premier of British Columbia finds it will be impossible for him to spend more than one and one half days at the Dominion-Provincial Conference, having just returned of course from two weeks abroad.


An hon. Member:: He will be here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, it is understood that he will be here, but it appears that he will not have sufficient time to discuss this important matter.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask the hon. Member a question. The hon. Member has just said that this expenditure would be too high. Will the hon. Member tell us whether there is a shortage of materials to build such a bridge or tunnel so that the required services may be provided at that point? Why is the hon. Member speaking about the expenditure, in view of the fact that everything physically necessary is available?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, that is a typical expression of Social Credit philosophy: Anything that is physically possible is economically feasible. That may or may not be so, 22620-161
Access to Vancouver Airport but so far in this discussion I have not said that the proposed project is not justifiable.
Let me assure the hon. Member that if the Premier and the Cabinet of the Province of British Columbia were more co-operative and assisted us at least in informing the general public as to the amounts of expenditures the Federal Government makes in respect of joint programs, and in respect of direct grants, it would be helpful, but this co-operation is singularly lacking on the part of the Cabinet of the Province of British Columbia. I think every Member, whether he is a politician or a statesman, must and does realize that under our system of responsible Government, and no one knows this better than the Cabinet of the Province of British Columbia, when an expenditure is made by a body that has collected the taxes, that body should at least receive some credit. It should be shown that the contributing body is contributing, otherwise our system of responsible Government breaks down, and I refer particularly to the federal system.
I should like to give one example of the lack of co-operation in this regard, and this refers to something which took place while the Conservative Party was in power here in Ottawa. On the completion of a section of the Trans-Canada Highway through a very mountainous section of the Rockies and Cascades, which had received great publicity, the Federal Government planned a joint Federal-Provincial grand opening ceremony. The Provincial Government rushed ahead and conducted an opening ceremony two weeks ahead of the planned joint opening. The joint financial arrangements for the construction of this section of the highway provided that the Federal Government would contribute 90 per cent of the cost of 10 per cent of the highway, plus 100 per cent of the cost of construction of the highway through Western National Parks. As a result of this the Federal Government spent almost $100 million, whereas the Provincial Government spent $2,700,000. That is an example of the lack of co-operation on the part of the British Columbia Cabinet, and that is why I say that at least in respect of joint programs the provincial governments should co-operate in a small measure by informing the general public as to the source of this money.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.


Mr. Winch:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Is the hon. Member sure that in

June 16, 1965
Business of the House
his recent automobile accident he only cracked his ribs?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. Member repeat his question, please.


Harold Edward Winch: I was wondering whether during the hon. Member's unfortunate and regrettable recent automobile accident he only cracked his ribs.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: From an observation of the actions of the hon. Member in this House over the past few years it is my thought that he must have had a serious accident some time ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. I must inform the House that the time allotted for private Members' business has now expired. If there is any reference to the business for tomorrow, it should be made now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the business that was interrupted
at five o'clock, namely a discussion of the budget resolutions. If they are completed, and I should imagine they will be early tomorrow, we will then consider Item No. 10 on today's order paper, resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice to set up a joint committee on penitentiaries. That will be followed by Item No. 21, a resolution preceding the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; Item No. 22, a resolution preceding a bill to provide for the construction of the Canadian National Railway Froomfield spur line near Sarnia. We will then take up supplementary estimates A relating to the Department of Labour; payments under the winter house building program. On Monday there will be a supply motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have a quahaug's imagination.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, June 17, 1965