1965-05-26

PRIVILEGE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgiil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a question of privilege arising out of a question of privilege raised last evening at ten o'clock by the hon. Member for Edmonton West at a time when I v/as not-and I apologize for this-in the House. In that statement the hon. gentleman, I think, misled the House as to the attitude I had taken earlier in the debate, and also I think misled the House as to his own attitude in the matter.
I should like to read very briefly, sir, from what the hon. gentleman said; I will not read all he said:
During the course of my remarks I was questioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgiil) as to the first occasion on which there had been an appeal, under Standing Order 26, from Mr. Speaker's ruling. On that occasion the Minister suggested that the appeal had come from the official opposition.
Well, Sir, I made no such suggestion. I would draw hon. Members' attention to Hansard, page 1638, where the hon. Member for Edmonton West accused us on this side of the House, because we had later voted in an opposite sense from the sense in which we had voted on the occasion to which he referred when he was Speaker, in these words:
Not only was that an exercise in hypocrisy, it was cynical.
I interrupted him and asked who made the appeal on that occasion. I asked because I did not know who made it and I was seeking information. The hon. Member went on:
It was contemptuous and it was contemptible. It was cynical in that it was repeated on a number of occasions.
Then, Sir, the hon. Member went on in his question of privilege to say:
I would like to clearly point out that the appeal came from the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) and that he was ably abetted in that appeal by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The date was given as June 17, 1963, and I have looked up the record. It is true that although the right hon. gentleman has sought to move the adjournment of the House, the appeal was taken by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and the appeal was put to the House. I have here the Hansard for June 17. I have the list of those who voted for the appeal, who voted in a manner which the hon. Member for Edmonton West has characterized as hypocrisy, cynicism and contempt of Parliament, and I find in the list of those who voted the ex-Speaker of the House, the hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport has sought to clarify the record further, I will say there was no attempt at all to confuse the issue. In this question last night the Minister indicated where the appeal had come from and I endeavoured to reply, and it is to that I limit my reply.
So far as the question of the appeal was concerned, I do recall that I gave way to a rather temporary degree of annoyance on the occasion. I regretted the decision, and I think I apologized to Your Honour privately for what I thought was perhaps a wrong gesture on my part on that occasion, for which I accept full responsibility and which I hope I will never repeat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bell: With reference to the ferry service changes between Grand Manan island and the mainland of New Brunswick (a) what are the present and the proposed distances, routes and sailings (b) will there be new terminals and, if so, give location, with all costs and details, including dredging (c) will a new vessel be used for this service and, if so, give size, capacity (passengers, cars and trucks), cost, and place of construction?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Public Works as follows:
The Canadian Maritime Commission advise as follows:

May 26, 1965
Questions
(a)	Distances present service:	between
Grand Manan and Saint John direct 45 miles; between Grand Manan and Saint John via Wilson's Beach 64 miles; between Grand Manan and St. Andrews via Wilson's Beach 30.5 miles.
Distance proposed service between Grand Manan and Blacks Harbour 19i miles;
Present routes and sailings, from May to October inclusive: Three round trips per week between Grand Manan and St. Andrews, calling at Wilson's Beach, both ways; One round trip per week between Grand Manan and Saint John, calling at Wilson's Beach, both ways; One round trip per week between Grand Manan and Saint John direct.
During the months of April, November and December: One round trip per week between Grand Manan and Saint John, calling at Wilson's Beach, both ways; Four round trips per week between Grand Manan and St. Andrews, calling at Wilson's Beach, both ways.
During the Mid-Summer months: Round trips are made on ten Sundays between Grand Manan and St. Andrews.
Proposed route and sailings during Summer months: Two round trips per day between Grand Manan and Blacks Harbour.
During the Winter months: One round trip per day between Grand Manan and Blacks Harbour.
(b)	New terminals will be provided. The mainland terminal will be at Blacks Harbour (Wallace's Cove) and the Grand Manan Island terminal will be at North Head. A contract was awarded by the Department of Public Works on March 29, 1965, to Diamond Construction (1961) Ltd., of Fredericton, N.B., based on a lump sum price, fixed unit rates and estimated quantities totalling $1,490,139. for the construction of the two terminals.
At Blacks Harbour the work involves the construction of a cribwork wharf with a rock-fill approach. The wharf will be equipped with a transfer bridge and hoisting equipment. An approach road and parking area are also included.
At North Head, a transfer bridge and the necessary hoisting equipment will be added to the existing boat wharf to accommodate the new ferry.
The dredging which is required at both sites is for the purpose of preparation of foundations for the timber cribs. No navigation dredging is required.

(c)	Yes. Size: length 172'3", breadth 40', moulded depth 13', draft lO'OOi". Capacity: 100 passengers, 22 cars or equivalent in cars and trucks. Cost of construction of vessel: $1,877,000. Place of construction: Saint John, N.B.


LENGTH OF LIFE OF NYLON FLAGS
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What is the average life of a flag made of nylon in accordance with Canadian Government specifications?
2.	How many flags does the Government of Canada use each year?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. It is difficult to provide this information. The average life of a flag depends on climatic conditions, exposure to high velocity winds, whether flown on land or at sea, the geographic location and the seasons in which such a flag is flown. However, those departments which are the largest users report that the average life of a nylon flag is approximately three months.
2.	Approximately 16,157.


REQUEST FOR RESEARCH PROJECT, CAPE BRETON COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the Minister of Forestry received a resolution from the Cape Breton County Municipal Council, requesting that the federal Department of Forestry, under ARDA, carry out a research project in District No. 12, in the County of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	What reply was given by the Minister of Forestry and what action is contemplated in regard to this resolution?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Forestry):: 1. Yes.
2.	Under the ARDA program, projects are initiated, planned and carried out by the provincial government with financial assistance provided by the federal government. Federal ARDA officials will be discussing the details of the research program with the province after it has been submitted to them.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING FOOD LABELLING
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from the Allergy Information Group, requesting the explicit labelling of foods and, if so, what was the reply?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Representations have been received by the Department of National Health and Welfare from officers of Allergy
May 26. 1965

Questions
Information requesting that the labels of all food products carry a complete list of ingredients.
The organization has been informed that the problem with respect to the sensitivity of many people to certain food ingredients and the need for listing ingredients on the labels of all food products are under active study by the Food and Drug Directorate. The matter was also referred for consideration to the Advisory Council of Consumers at a meeting held at Ottawa during February of this year. The members of the Council agreed that more information should appear on food labels but that the process of revision should be a gradual one. They felt that the whole allergy problem should be investigated with a view to determining the number of allergy sufferers in Canada and ascertaining the ingredients to which people are most frequently sensitive. This information is now being gathered by the Food and Drug Directorate and it is hoped that an early and practical solution to the problem can be found.
Changes have been embodied in the Food and Drug Regulations during the past year to require more complete listing of ingredients and more informative labelling. It is expected that, as time goes by, the number of foods exempted from a list of ingredients will be reduced and that many of the standardized foods will require an ingredient list on the label.


COST OF BUILDINGS OCCUPIED BY INCOME TAX ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What was the cost of maintenance of buildings occupied by officials of the Income Tax Act administration in Canada for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	To whom were rentals for premises paid in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The cost of accommodating the taxation division in Canada in the years 1960 to 1963 calculated to May 31st each year, is as follows: May 31, 1961, $4,378,767; May 31, 1962, $4,644,725; May 31, 1963, $4,681,617; May 31, 1964, $4,768,487.
Records were not maintained for 1958 or 1959, therefore, accommodation costs are not available for those years. Costs to May, 1965 will not be available until late in July, 1965.
2. Maurice Pollack Realty Co. Ltd., 771 St. Joseph Street East, Quebec City, Que.


INDUSTRIAL SURVEY OF CAPE BRETON ISLAND
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: Norih and Victoria):
1.	Who are the members of the Special Committee appointed to make an on the spot survey of Cape Breton Island and its employment and industrial potential, as recently announced by the Minister pf Labour?
2.	On what date were the members of the Special Committee appointed?
3.	Have they commenced their work?
4.	How long will this survey take and to whom will the Committee report?
5.	Wha1 are the specific duties of this Committee in conducting such a survey?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.
No specific members have been named to the special committee which has been investigating opportunities for new economic development in Cape Breton Island. The Area Development Agency of the Department of Industry was assigned the responsibility by the Interdepartmental Committee on Energy and Coal, and all related Federal Departments and Agencies are participating in its work. The special committee is under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner of the Area Development Agency.
2.	The special committee was formed on April 14, 1964.
3.	Yes. In addition, three subcommittees on tourism, fisheries, and agriculture and forestry have been at work on these specific aspects of the Cape Breton economy.
4.	The first phase of the study has just been completed and reports are being prepared for the consideration of the Interdepartmental Committee on Energy and Coal and the responsible Ministers.
5.	The special committee was asked to undertake a comprehensive examination of the Cape Breton economy and to report on any potentials for new economic development.


ARDA PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA COUNTIES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What projects under ARDA have been carried out in the counties of Cape Breton, Richmond, Inverness and Victoria, Nova Scotia since the inception of the Act?
2.	In each instance what was the federal share and the provincial share of each project?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. Projects submitted by the Province of Nova Scotia under the ARDA Agreement involving the four counties mentioned since the inception of the Act are as follows:

May 26. 1965
Questions
Inverness County: Purchase and Development of Cheticamp Island Community Pasture; Acquisition and Development of Cape Mabou Community Pasture.
Cape Breton County: Feasibility Study of Agricultural Development Bridgeport-Gard-iner Area.
Richmond County: Nil.
Victoria County: Nil.
2.	The federal and provincial share covering each of the abovementioned projects is as follows:
Inverness County: Purchase and Development of Cheticamp Island Community Pasture. Provincial Share $5,151-Federal Share $7,651; Acquisition and Development of Cape Mabou Community Pasture. Provincial Share $8,000- Federal Share $10,000.
Cape Breton County: Feasibility Study of Agricultural Development Bridgeport-Gard-iner Area. Provincial Share $1,000-Federal Share $1,000.
Richmond County: Nil.
Victoria County: Nil.


CANADIAN PATENTS AND DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What are the functions of Canadian Patents and Development Limited?
2.	Where did the name of the Company originate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The company obtains letters patent of invention in Canada, the United States and other countries of the world, licenses such letters patent to Canadian industries or otherwise and generally administers patents and inventions on behalf of the National Research Council pursuant to Section 13 of the Research Council Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, Chapter 239 as amended by Statutes of Canada 1953-54, Chapters 40 and 42, and its charter of incorporation under Part 1 of the Companies Act, such inventions having become vested in the National Research Council pursuant to Section 3 of the Public Servants Inventions Act, Statutes of Canada 1954, Chapter 40. The company also pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of the Public Servants
NES AREA	LOCATION
Brantford	Brantford
**
*

Invention Act obtains letters patent of inventions and licenses and administers the same on behalf of any government department or crown corporation which desires to make use of its facilities.
2. The name of the company was chosen in 1947 after consultation with the privy council committee on scientific and industrial research, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State, companies branch.


APPLICATIONS FROM BUSINESSES IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	How many businesses, which have been the subject of an application prior to the dedesignation of an area, have been approved under tax incentives for designated areas?
2.	What are the names of these businesses?
3.	What are their present locations?
4.	What were the dates of these applications?
5.	On what dates were letters of assurance issued?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The assumption is taken that the questions relate to the three National Employment Service Office areas of Brantford, Pembroke and St. Jean which were de-designated effective January 23, 1965. No requests for certificates of exemption from Income Tax have been received from new businesses in the three areas presumably because no businesses have yet completed the first tax year in which the exemption will be sought. New businesses, however, have declared their intentions to establish in the following numbers: Brantford 67; Pembroke 1; Saint Jean 26.
Of these, letters of assurance, indicating that plans of the new businesses if carried out will meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act, have been issued to firms in the three areas as follows: Brantford 41; Pembroke -; Saint Jean 13.
2 & 3. It is not in the public interest to divulge the names of businesses which may benefit from provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, among the businesses which have received letters of assurance, the following have announced publicly their intentions to establish:
NAME OF COMPANY Anchor Coupling Canada Limited Ascolectric Limited Berlet Electronics Limited Dominion Oilcloth & Linoleum Co. Ltd. Farris Brantford Limited

May 26, 1965
NES AREA Brantford
Saint Jean

Questions
LOCATION	NAME OF COMPANY
Brantford
it
tt
Paris
tt
Saint Jean
it
Lacolle
Iberville
Marieville
it
Harding Brantford Limited Highland Kitchens
S. C. Johnson Pressurized Products Ltd. Magnetic Metals of Canada Ltd. Massey-Ferguson Brantford Limited Panalco Limited Seaforth Pipe Co. Limited Penmans Industrial Knit Ltd.
Skecs Limited
Canadian Westinghouse Company Limited Collins & Aikman (St. Jean) Limited Dominion Rubber Company Limited Fuller (St. John) Ltd.
Richelieu Fabrics Limited
Les Produits d'Acier Lacolle Limitee
Renoir Tricot Mills Inc.
Silibeton Ltd.
Vesta Brassiere Corp.
4 & 5. Notices of intention were received ing time periods: and letters of assurance issued in the follow-

Brantford
Pembroke Saint Jean
NOTICES OF INTENTION	LETTERS OF ASSURANCE
between January 15, 1964	between April 9, 1964
and January 22, 1965	and April 26, 1965
December 24, 1964
between February 11, 1964	between March 9, 1964
and January 22, 1965	and May 6, 1965


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COMPETITION 65-H536
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: May 26, 1965
Questions


PURCHASES OF CARS AND TRUCKS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many cars and trucks were bought by the federal government in 1964?
2.	Since the government has decided to purchase all non-military cars and trucks through a central purchasing system, namely the Department of Defence Production, how does the government propose to handle the servicing of these cars and trucks?
3.	How does the government propose to handle the resale of these cars?
4.	How would the government propose to handle the case where a federal employee might wish to purchase a car through this system?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	A total of 2,573 motor vehicles of all types were purchased by the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965; 1,987 of these were passenger carrying vehicles.
2.	Negotiations are under way with the vehicle manufacturers to extend to all civilian departments vehicle repair arrangements similar to those established some years ago for the Department of National Defence. The existing arrangements allow the Department of National Defence to have repairs carried out by the manufacturers' dealers throughout the country at specified parts prices and labour rates with the dealer being reimbursed
by the manufacturer. The manufacturer, in turn, bills the Department of National Defence on a monthly basis for the services performed by the dealer.
3.	The Government expects to be able to continue to sell its used cars to recognized used car dealers at competitive prices, bearing in mind both its responsibility to achieve as high a return as possible for the sale of an asset of the Crown and, at the same time, keeping in mind the necessity of making use of normal commercial channels.
4.	No federal employee would be able to buy a vehicle through the proposed system which will exclusively be used for the procurement of government vehicles.


IMPROVEMENTS TO R.C.A.F. STATION GIMLI
Mr. Sfefanson: 1.	What construction projects or other improvements have been approved or are planned for R.C.A.F. Station, Gimli, during the 1965-66 fiscal year, giving estimated cost of each?
2.	Have tenders been called and, if so, from whom were tenders received, and what were the bids and who was the successful bidder in each case?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: See table page 1657.

1 and 2-APPROVED PROJECTS
Project	Tenders Received from	Bids	Successful Bidder RemarksCrack Sealing Concrete Tarmac	Federal Joint Sealing Co. of Can. Donco Enterprises Ltd. Winnipeg GJ Foley Constr Co. Ltd. Winnipeg	19.810.00 29.900.00 38.800.00	Contract awarded to Federal Joint Sealing Co. on 30 Apr 65Control Tower ) UHF TX/RX Bldg. 1 TACAN OCA Bldg. J	Peter Leitch Constr. Ltd. Winnipeg Bird Constr. Co. Ltd. Winnipeg Carter Constr. Co. Ltd. Winnipeg Zelmer Constr. Co. Ltd. Winnipeg Arnason Constr. Co. Ltd. Winnipeg	228,500.001 233.710.00 234.450.00 253.691.00 269,800.00]	Four projects combined as one tender call. Tenders under r review and selection of successful bidder not yet made.Storm Sash and Screen Replacement	D'Aoust Sash & Door Co. Ltd. St. Boniface Alsco Distr of Eastern Ont. Montreal Etna Heating Industr Ltd. Winnipeg	14,293.55 21,120.00 9,483.00	Tenders under review.Reconstruct Runways	-	-	Estimated cost $4.7 M. Tenders close 28 May 65.Exterior Painting 160 PMQ's	-	-	Estimated cost $40,000. Tenders close 27 May 65.May 26, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1657
Questions

May 26. 1965
Questions


FOREST ACCESS ROADS, YARMOUTH AND SHELBURNE COUNTIES, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Quesion No. 345-Mr. Armstrong:
1.	What forest access roads were built in (a) Yarmouth County, and (b) Shelburne County, In 1963-64 and 1964-65 under the Composite Forestry Agreement between Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia?
2.	In each case, what was the amount of the federal contribution?
Bruce Silas Beer: 1. (a) 1963-64, Indian Fields Road; 1964-65, Indian Fields Road.
(b)	1963-64, Demoliter Lake; 1964-65,
Indian Fields Road (spur).
2.	(a) 1963-64, $7,448.69; 1964-65, $7,240.51. (b) 1963-64, $1,404.74; 1964-65, $1,034.36.


FOREST ACCESS ROADS, ANTIGONISH AND GUYSBOROUGH COUNTIES, N.S.
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	What forest access roads were built in (a) Antigonish County, and (b) Guysborough County, in 1963-64 and 1964-65 under the composite forestry agreement between Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia?
2.	In each case, what was the amount of the federal contribution?


Bruce Silas Beer: 1. (a) 1963-64, Crystal
Cliffs and Beach Hill; 1964-65, Crystal Cliffs.
(b)	1963-64, Two Mile Lake, Denver,
Giant's Lake, Upper Manchester; 1964-65, Two Mile Lake, Denver, Fox Island, Giant's Lake.
2.	(a) 1963-64, $1,384.16; 1964-65, $518.38. (b) 1963-64, $5,443.49; 1964-65, $3,568.21.


WINTER WORKS APPLICATIONS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many parishes and municipalities in the county of Chapleau filed applications under the Winter Works Incentive Program for the 1964-65
season?
2.	Which of these parishes and municipalities had their applications approved and what was the nature and dollar value of the projects proposed?
3.	What are the names of the localities in the county of Chapleau that applied for an extension of the time limit on winter works under the regulations established last year and, of this number, which applications were approved?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Eighteen.
2.	See table page 1659.
3.	Town of Chibougamau, and Village of Parent. The extension of the work period was approved for the project carried out by the Town of Chibougamau.


MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1964-65 ACCEPTED PROJECTS CONSTITUENCY OF CHAPLEAU-PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Project
Number	Municipality
Que.	208
Que.	1953
Que.	2247
Que.	2470
Que.	458
Que.	1582
Que.	529
Que.	300
Que.	1513
Que.	978
Que.	1523
Que.	751
Que.	1431
Que.	911
Que.	761
Que.	1002
Que.	1219
Que.	2216
Que.	1725
Que.	941
Que.	1327
Que.	2160
Que.	590
Que.	2060
Que.	2203
Que.	974
Que.	2134
Que.	1205
Amos, Town	
Authier, Without designation	
Authier, Without designation	
Authier, Without designation	
Barville, Town	
Belcourt, Without designation....
Champneuf, Without designation..
Chibougamau, Town	
Colombourg, Without designation.
Landrienne, Township	
LaReine, Village	
LaReine, Without designation	
La Sarre, Town	
La Sarre, Township	
Macamic, Town	
Macamic, Town	
Normetal, Without designation - Normetal, Without designation - Palmarolle, Without designation...
Parent, Village	
Poularies, Without designation___
Poularies, Without designation
[Stage Direction]
Roquemaure, Without designation. Roquemaure, Without designation Roquemaure, Without designation,
Senneterre, Parish	
Senneterre, Parish	
Trecesson, Township	
Total
Description	Cost
[Stage Direction]
Development of arena, construction of parking lot and shelter_	173,800
Demolition of building	 3,400
Digging well, clearing area	 5,800
Clearing land, landscaping sidewalks and construction of tourist
information booth	 4,800
Clearing creek, construction of rink	 17,000
Beach development, sidewalk construction	 20,500
Reconstruction of municipal hall	 25,000
Construction of tow*n hall and garage	 362,171
Clearing water courses	 20,000
Improvements to town hall, installation of sewers	 11,000
Improvements to park, construction of sidewalks	 19,500
Clearing road sides, digging water courses	 32,000
Installation of sewers, construction of sidewalks	 100,000
Improvements to roads, construction of reservoirs	 80,000
Clearing area for park and streets	 3,500
Sidewalk construction	 5,550
Installation of water main and sewer	 13,849
Construction of vault in building	 4,500
Construction of sidewalks, digging reservoirs	 61,500
Clearing power line, development of playground	 70,000
Clearing water courses	 25,000
Construction of warehouse, digging wells	 25,000
Clearing water courses	 25,000
Road improvements, clearing water courses	 20,000
Clearing road	 35,000
Clearing water courses	 42,556
Clearing creeks, cutting branches	 85,000
Digging wells, construction of rink	 35,000
Total	 1,326,426
May 26. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1659
Questions
[Stage Direction]
May 26. 1965
Questions

Mr. Forbes: 1.	How many offers to purchase were received
and what amounts were bid in each case in response to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation's "For Sale Declarations" numbered 201-3-196752, 201-3196753,	201-3-196672, and 201-3-196754, all dated
April 12, 1965?
2.	To whom were the vehicles sold, and what was the address and the bid of the purchaser in each case?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	14	offers for No. 196752 as	follows:$1,000.00, $815.00, $800.00, $775.00, $705.00, $665.00,	$627.00,	$600.00.	$569.00,	$559.00,$431.00, $425.00, $400.00, 356.00; 14 offers for No. 196753 as follows: $1,000.00, $815.00, $770.00,	$825.00,	$675.00,	$665.00,	$626.00,$600.00,	$601.00,	$569.00,	$431.00,	$425.00,$400.00, $356.00; 15 offers for No. 196754 as follows:	$888.88,	$805.00,	$800.00,	$759.00,$752.00,	$750.00,	$601.00	$600.00,	$600.00,$525.00,	$515.00,	$510.00,	$503.00	$480.00,$428.00; 10 offers for No. 196672 as follows: $675.00,	$675.00,	$626.00,	$610.00	$547.00,

2.	No sale has been made yet in any of these cases.


N.H.A. MORTGAGES FOR HOUSES WITH SEPTIC TANKS
Mr. Madill: 1.	Are N.H.A. mortgages being approved in Quebec when houses have septic tanks in lieu of sewerage?
2.	Are N.H.A. mortgages being approved in Ontario when houses have septic tanks in lieu of sewerage?
3.	Are N.H.A. mortgages being approved, in subdivisions when the subdivision is on an approved draft plan, or approved by the town or municipality?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1 and 2. Yes, but only in the following circumstances:
(a) Where the municipal authority provides evidence that a piped sewer will be available within a period of from 2-3 years and a bylaw is in effect requiring existing housing to
connect to it within a specified time, (b) Where construction is proposed in a rural area, (c) In certain designated portions of subdivisions that were accepted prior to January 1961.
3.	Yes, subject to 1 and 2 above and the following:
Legislation for the approval of subdivision draft plans varies between Provinces. In Ontario, final approval is given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, after which registration may be effected and NHA loans may be approved.
In Quebec, the draft plan may be accepted by the town or municipality but must be sent to the Minister of Lands and Forests for approval and registration, after which time NHA loans may be approved.
Acceptance of a draft plan by a town or municipality does not alone constitute acceptability for NHA lending.


EXTENSION OF FISHERIES INDEMNITY PLAN
Mr. Siefanson: Is the government planning to extend the fisheries indemnity plan for boats and equipment to apply to inland provinces and, if so, when will this be implemented?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Respecting application of the plan to boats, status of matter was explained in reply to question 272. The extension of the plan generally to equipment is receiving consideration.


EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What countries participated in Canada's export credit program in 1964?
2.	What were the amounts of credit extended to each country?
3.	What were the conditions of credit agreed upon in each case?
4.	What were the names of the firms participating in this program?
5.	What provinces in Canada benefited through receiving export credit contracts in 1964?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Chile, India, Mexico and the Philippines.

May 26, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	Questions	16612. Country	Amount	DisbursedBuyer	of loan	in 1964Chile	(Pulp mill equipment)	Compania manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones S.A.	2.8 million	NilIndia	(a) (Foil mill and smelter equipment)	The President of India	.9 million	Nil(b) (Nuclear Power Plant)	The President of India	37.0 million	$ 494,139.(c) (Zinc smelter equipment)	Cominco Binani Zinc Limited	1.6 million	$ 178,357.(d) (Trisonic wind tunnel)	The President of India	4.2 million	$1,614,487.(e) (Steel mill furnaces)	The President of India	2.1 million	NilMexico	(a) (Pulp & Paper mill equipment)	Fabricas de Papel Tuxtepec S.A.	3.0 million	$2,357,834.(b) (Steel rails & accessories)	Ferrocarril del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V.	3.0 million	$1,245,966.Philippines	(T eleco m munications Network)	Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company	13.5 million	Nil
3. Country	Terms
Chile	25 semi-annual payments beginning July 23, 1966.
India	(a) 25 semi-annual payments beginning May 31, 1966.
(b)	31 semi-annual payments beginning Feb. 1, 1966.
(c)	20 semi-annual payments beginning May 1, 1969.
(d)	23 semi-annual payments beginning June 1, 1968.
(e)	33 semi-annual payments beginning Nov. 1, 1968.
Mexico	(a) 17 semi-annual payments beginning May 1, 1966.
(b)	12 semi-annual payments beginning Jan. 1, 1965.
Philippines	21 semi-annual payments beginning July 15, 1966.
	
4. Country	Exporter
Chile	H. A. Simons (International) Ltd.-Vancouver, B.C.
India	(a) Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd.-Montreal, P.Q.
(b)	Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-Chalk River, Ont. Montreal Engineering Co. Ltd.-Montreal, P.Q.
(c)	Consolidated Mining & Smelting Co. of Canada Ltd.-Trail, B.C.
(d)	Canadian Vickers Limited-Montreal, P.Q.
(e)	Amco Furnace Contractors Ltd.-Rexdale, Ont.
Mexico	(a) Parsons & Wittemore (Contractors) Ltd.-Montreal, P.Q. Sandwell
and Co. Ltd.-Vancouver, B.C.
(b) Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd.-Sydney, N.S.
Philippines	Automatic Electric (Canada) Ltd.-Brockville, Ontario.
1662

May 26, 1965
Questions
5.	The exporters under these credits are located in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. Because of the small amounts disbursed in 1964 against credits guaranteed in that year, it is not possible to say what provinces benefited through receiving export credits contracts. However, past experience under credits granted in previous years has shown that there have been over 1,000 sub-suppliers located in almost every province in Canada.


POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PROJECTS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works any new information about the omission from Trans-Canada Highway contracts made by Nova Scotia of the clause required by the Agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia prohibiting political discrimination in employment on highway construction?
2.	Has the Minister obtained a verbatim report of the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia and did the report contain testimony that "kickbacks" were required for employment on certain Trans-Canada Highway projects in Nova Scotia?
3.	Has the Minister of Public Works in his possession any materials, in the form of affidavits or otherwise, alleging that political discrimination was practised or is being practised in the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway in Nova Scotia?
4.	What sections of the Trans-Canada Highway are scheduled for construction in Nova Scotia in 1965-66?
5.	Under the Trans-Canada Highway Act what responsibility has the Minister of Public Works to stop political discrimination?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The Minister of Highways of Nova Scotia has advised the Minister of Public Works that he will ensure that the anti-discriminatory clause required by the trans-Canada highway agreement is included in future provincial highway contracts.
2.	The Minister of Public Works has, in his possession, a copy of the verbatim report of the hearings of the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia. The report does contain testimony with reference to "kickbacks" and concludes, from the evidence presented, that there was no wrongdoing which could be related to kickbacks.
3.	Yes.
4.	As the schedule of construction is a provincial responsibility, the Department is not yet in possession of the program of Nova Scotia for 1965-66.
5.	Under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, the Minister of Public Works has no responsibility to stop political discrimination. However, under the Agreement pursuant to the Act and signed with the Province of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Public Works may refuse to make payments to the Province upon proof of discrimination by reason of race, religion or political affiliation.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION TENDER PM.18-479210
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many companies submitted bids to the Department of Defence Production on Tender PM.-18-479210?
2.	What were the prices submitted by each company (a) on the original tender (b) on the supplementary tender?
3.	Were these prices for a complete facility or price per equipment?
4.	What fluctuation will be allowed in the quoted price?
5.	Will the quoted price be increased by amendments during the term of the contract?
6.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Nine (9) Canadian companies.
2.
Original Tender Supplementary Tender
RCA Victor Company Ltd. Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd. ITT Canada Ltd.
Canadian Westinghouse Company EMI Cossor
Stark Electronic Instrument Ltd. Canadian General Electric Bayly Engineering Ltd.
Computing Devices of Canada Ltd.

3.	The firm prices offered cover a complete service for a period of twelve (12) months commencing April 1, 1965 through March 31, 1966 and provides for the repair, overhaul, [Mr. Sharp.)
modification of and reduction to spares of ground and airborne electronic materiel both in the contractor's plant and by means of contractor's mobile repair party. In addition,
May 26. 1965

special investigations, technical studies and the provision of engineering data relevant to these investigations and studies are also included in the firm quote price.
4.	It is not intended that any adjustment will be made during the contract period or thereafter in the firm fixed price quoted.
5.	The quoted price will not be increased during the term of the contract unless the statement of requirement is increased.
6.	The successful company was Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, the second low tenderer. The contract was awarded on the basis of technical acceptability and minimum price.


MOVEMENT OF MINES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES TO ELLIOT LAKE
Mr. Canlelon: 1.	Were a number of employees of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys moved to Elliot Lake within recent months and, if so (a) how many were moved (b) what are they doing at Elliot Lake (c) how long are they to remain at Elliot Lake'/
2.	Will others be moved and for how long?
3.	What did these moves cost public treasury?
Hen. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys): 1. Yes. (a) 7. (b) Applied mining research on rock mechanics (pressures in mines) and airborne dusts, (c) Indefinitely.
2.	No. New staff will be recruited to meet requirements. This will be permanent employment.
Questions
3.	The movement of families not yet completed. Cost to date $5,000.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Starr: Under the municipal winter works program (a) how many applications were received (i) during the winter of 1064 (ii) during the winter of 1965 (b) how many applications were accepted (1) during the winter of 1964 (it) during the winter of 1965 (c) how many applications were rejected, pending or withdrawn (i) during the winter of
1964	(ii) during the winter of 1965 (d) what was the estimated total cost of products (i) during the winter of 1964 (ii) during the winter of 1965 (e) what was the estimated total direct payroll cost of projects (i) during the winter of 1964 (ii) during the winter of 1965 (f) what was the estimated cost of projects during period of program (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) for the winter of
1965	(g) what was the estimated direct payroll cost
of projects during period of program (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) for the winter of 1965	(h)
what was the percentage of payroll cost to total cost during period of program (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) for the winter of 1965 (i) what was the estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) for the winter of 1965 (j) what was the estimated number of men to be hired during period of program (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) for the winter of 1965
(k)	what was the estimated man-days work to be provided during the period of program (i) for the winter of 1964 (ii) during the winter of 1965
(l)	what was the number of participating local authorities (i) during the winter of 1964 (ii) during the winter of 1965?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)


Q) (k) (l)
[Stage Direction]
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1963-1964 and 1964-1965
Particulars	May 11, 1964	May 10, 1965Applications received	7,397	6,439Applications accepted Applications rejected, pending or with-	7,306	6,309drawn	91	130Estimated total cost of projects	$390,467,015	$456,087,242Estimated direct payroll cost of projects Estimated cost of projects during period	$127,152,767	$148,535,873of program Estimated direct payroll cost of projects	$277,493,338	$314,926,650during period of program Percentage of payroll cost to total cost	$ 97,583,673	$113,133,739during period of program Estimated federal government share of	35.2	35.9direct payroll costs Estimated number of men to be hired	$ 56,729,893	$ 60,994,642during period of program Estimated man-days work to be provided	163,572	166,369during period of program	6,790,224	7,855,928Participating local authorities	2,752	2,577
May 26, 1965
Questions

Mr. Coales: Did any other individuals enter Canada with Joe Bonnano and, if so, what are their names and are all or any of the individuals still resident in Canada?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Joe Bonnano entered Canada accompanied by his wife Filippa (Fay) who has since left Canada.


IMMIGRANTS UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF LUCIEN RIVARD
Mr. Coates: Did any United States citizens enter Canada under the sponsorship of Lucien Rivard and, if so, did any of those who made application for landed immigrants' status secure such status and what are the names of the individuals in question?


Hubert Badanai: No.


INFORMATION ON IMMIGRANTS CONVEYED TO MINISTER
Mr. Coates: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration immediately contacted when individuals such as Joe Bonnano or Harry Stonehill arrive in Canada and on what basis are they allowed to remain even on a temporary basis?


Hubert Badanai: If persons are found to be inadmissible at a Canadian port of entry, they are refused entry to Canada. If persons gain entry temporarily in the normal tourist stream and are subsequently detected and found to be prohibited, they are subject to deportation proceedings according to the law. At this stage, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, depending upon the circumstances of the case, may be advised.


INFORMATION TO BORDER POINTS ON WANTED PERSONS
Mr. Coates: By what procedure does the Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration communicate, especially at border crossings, information related to wanted individuals in Canada and have any new procedures been initiated and, if so, when?


Hubert Badanai: The hon. member's attention is drawn to the remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on this subject at pages 1238 and 1297 of Hansard on May 13
{Mr. MacEachen.l
and May 14, 1965. Law enforcement agencies are responsible for the detection and apprehension of criminals: Immigration officers cooperate fully with these agencies as may be appropriate in the circumstances. In the broader field of criminal intelligence, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration plays an active role in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to prevent alien criminals and the agencies of international crime from establishing footholds in Canada.


JOE BONNANO-DISPOSITION OF PERJURY CHARGE
Mr. Coafes: Was the charge of perjury laid against Joe Bonnano dropped allowing Mr. Bonnano to return to the United States and, if so, for what reason?


Hubert Badanai: No. Three charges of perjury were laid against Mr. Bonnano while he was in Canada. He was tried and acquitted on these charges.
SUBSIDIES ON DAIRY PRODUCTS Question No. 415


Mr. Doucett:: 1.	What was the amount of subsidy paid on dairy products in 1964?
2.	What was the amount of subsidy paid on butter in 1934?
3.	What was the amount of subsidy paid on cheese in 1984?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The amount of subsidy paid on dairy products during the fiscal year 1964-65 was $45,477,311.40.
2.	The amount of subsidy paid on butter during the fiscal year 1964-65 was $37,001,738.77.
3.	The amount of subsidy paid on cheese during the fiscal year 1964-65 was $6,238,828.36.


BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Coates: Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration initiated any new procedural methods within his department to determine the background of applicants for landed immigrants' status and to eliminate the possibility of individuals such as Onofrio Minaudo, Joe Bonnano and Harry Stonehill securing even temporary asylum in Canada?


Hubert Badanai: It was by means of existing procedures that the persons named in the question were detected when they applied for landed immigrant status. It has not therefore been found necessary to introduce
May 26. 1965



new procedures to determine the background of applicants for landed immigrant status.
It is not feasible to apply the same procedures to determine the background of persons seeking temporary admission to Canada since to do so would in effect seal off Canada's borders to not only the few undesirables who seek to gain admission but also to the millions of legitimate tourists who come here annually. In 1964 over 30,000,000 non-immigrant visitors entered Canada, the majority of these from the U.S.A.


WHARF REPAIRS, PICTOU LANDING, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to carry out repairs to the wharf at Pictou Landing, N.S., during the current year 19G5-66 and. If not, for what reason are repairs not being carried out?
2.	If so, what repairs will be carried out and when will the tenders be called?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. The Department is planning to carry out repairs to the wharf at Pictou Landing during 1965-66.
2. Work will consist of the provision of fenders along 360 feet of the outer west side of the wharf; repairs to the deck system and boat landing and maintenance dredging. It is expected that tenders for the work will be called this summer.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, WHITE BEAR INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Southam: 1.	Has an Indian Agent been appointed for the White Bear Indian Reserve and, if so, what is his name and rate of salary?
2.	How many other federal employees are engaged on the White Bear Reserve?
3.	What are their duties and amount of salary?


Hubert Badanai: 1. On May 17, 1965, Mr. T. R. Heggie assumed the duties of Indian Affairs Officer 2 at Carlyle, Saskatchewan at an annual salary of $5,910.
2.	There are two employees on a full time basis and one on a casual basis.
3.	(a) Teacher-Principal (level 8)-$5,600 per year; (b) Teacher (level 8)-$5,300 per year; (c) Janitor-caretaker employed on a part time basis at a monthly salary of $50.


DREDGING SURVEY, INGONISH BEACH, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the government received the report of the survey into the necessity of dredging of the harbour at Ingonish Beach, Victoria County, N.S. and, if so, what are the plans of the department concerned?
Questions
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): Yes. Sufficient depths are reported. No action planned.


MONTREAL-PRIVATE USE OF HARBOURS BOARD LAND
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the National Harbours Board intend to turn over five acres of land in Montreal to private promoters on a long term basis without any
charge?
2.	If so, what are the major details of the plan of use including the type of structure that may be created and its uses in the future and the nature of the revenue which will accrue to those who build it?
3.	Is there any intention that any structure to be erected will be used as a headquarters for any political group?
4.	Will there be anything on the site which will provide food service for patrons of Expo '67?
5.	Was it necessary that this arrangement be approved by Treasury Board and, if so, what was the date of the approval?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board informs as follows:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	See answer to part 1.
5.	See answer to part 1.


HARBOUR WORKS, SOUTHAMPTON, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Southampton, Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No projects, other than to instal a bollard and carry out ordinary routine maintenance, are planned during 1965 for the harbour facilities at Southampton, Ont.


HARBOUR WORKS, SAUGEEN RIVER, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Saugeen River, Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No projects other than ordinary routine maintenance are planned by the Department of Public Works during 1965 for the harbour facilities at Saugeen River, Ont.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, OROMOCTO, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Will a hospital definitely be built in the Oro-mocto-Camp Gagetown area and, if so, when will construction start?
less

May 26, 1965
Questions
2.	What will be the financial contribution of the federal government towards the building of this hospital?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. The Department of National Defence has been advised that a 50-bed hospital (to be known as the Oromocto Public Hospital) will be built in the Town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to meet the needs of the civilian community in the town and surrounding area. Plans are now being prepared by a planning board appointed by the Board of Commissioners of the town and it is intended that construction will commence in the fall of 1965.
2. It is assumed that the Oromocto Public Hospital will qualify for the usual hospital construction grants administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In addition, in the event that agreement is reached between the Oromocto Public Hospital Planning Board and the Department of National Defence for the provision of an additional 40 beds and certain associated facilities to meet the needs of military personnel serving at Camp Gagetown, and subject to the necessary executive authority, the Department of National Defence would make a financial contribution appropriate to the additional beds and facilities. Pending the conclusion of current discussions, the amount of the possible contribution is not known.


BATHURST MARINE LTD.-SHIP BUILDING SUBSIDIES
Mr. Mullally: 1.	To date, how many steel trawlers have been approved for ship building subsidy for construction at Bathurst Marine Limited, Georgetown, P.E.I.?
2.	What is the approved cost of each ship and what is the amount of subsidy approved by the Canadian Maritime Commission?
3.	What is the total amount of federal ship building subsidy approved to date on all vessels?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows:
1.	Three.
2.	The approved cost of each ship is $735,000. The amount of subsidy approved for each vessel is $367,500.
3.	The total federal ship building subsidy on all vessels approved to date is $136,198,815.02.


HARBOUR WORKS, RED BAY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works
[Mr. MacRae.l
during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Red Bay,
Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No projects other than ordinary routine maintenance are planned by the Department of Public Works during 1965 at Red Bay, Ont.


HARBOUR WORKS, OLIPHANT, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Oli-phant, Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to reconstruct the wharf during 1965 at Oliphant, Ont.


INCREASE IN INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT STAFF FOLLOWING AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Sienson: Has the Department of Industry increased its staff to police the imports of car parts coming into Canada from the United States since the Canadian-U.S. Automotive Trade Pact was signed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No. The administration of the import and utilization of original equipment parts into Canada for assembly into cars is carried out, as a matter of course, by the Department of National Revenue.


HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, OROMOCTO, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is there any delay in the development of housing in Oromocto and, if so, what are the reasons for any such delay?
2.	Is the government at this time erecting court-type housing in Oromocto?
3.	Has the government received representations to the effect that this type of housing has proven unsatisfactory and, if so, will consideration be given to the advisability of discontinuing the erection of this type of housing in favour of the duplex type or single dwellings?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Three hundred
permanent married quarters are being built by contract at Oromocto for use of Army personnel. C.M.H.C. is acting as agent of the Department of National Defence in the design and supervision of this project. The contract requires all units to be available for occupancy by July 31, 1965; the construction schedule calls for occupancy of 190 units by April 30, 1965. As at that date 80 units had been delivered. There is, therefore, a delay in completion. The contractor has advised that this delay can be made up by the final
May 26, 1965

completion date. The reasons given by the contractor for the delays to date are a shortage of skilled trades for finishing work coupled with adverse ground conditions encountered during the late winter and early spring.
2.	Yes.
3.	No such representations have been received.


CONSTRUCTION OF POSTAL STATION &quot;L&quot;. TORONTO
Mr. Gelber: When will construction commence on the new postal station "I." on Oakwood Avenue near Vaughan Road in Toronto?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is expected that construction will commence in the fall of 1965.


FISHING VESSEL ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS. P.E.I.
Mr. Mullally: 1.	How many applications have been received to date from Prince Edward Island fishermen through the Fishermen's Loan Board of Prince Edward Island for Fishing Vessel Assistance on fishing boats 35 to 45 feet in length?
2. How many applications have been approved and how many declined?
3.	What is the total value of the assistance on the approved applications?
4.	Who decides what standards and specifications these fishing boats must meet in order to qualify for assistance?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. No applications have been received from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Loan Board.
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	The Fishing Vessel Assistance Regulations provide that no payment shall be made by the Minister (a) in respect of a vessel of 15 tons gross tonnage or under, until the Board (Fishermen's Loan) has certified that the vessel has been inspected and approved by the Board; or (b) in respect of a vessel of more than 15 tons gross tonnage, until an inspection of the Board of Steamship Inspection has issued an Inspection Certificate indicating the operational limits of the vessel and approving its construction and propelling machinery.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, MATHESON ISLAND, MAN.
Mr. Siefanson: Has the government any plans for improving harbour facilities at Matheson Island, Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, and, if so, when will these plans be carried out?
Questions
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): See reply to question No. 387, Hansard, page 1347, May 17, 1965.


HARBOUR WORKS, STOKES BAY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Stokes Bay, Ontario?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): The Department of Public Works proposes to carry out minor repairs to the wharf decking and ladders at Stokes Bay during 1985.


HARBOUR WORKS, HOWDENVALE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Howden-vale, Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No projects other than ordinary routine maintenance including minor deck repairs are planned by the Department of Public Works during 1965 at Howdenvale, Ont.


TENDERS FOR MULTIPURPOSE FISHERIES PROTECTION VESSEL
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for the 179-foot steel multipurpose fisheries protection vessel?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?
3.	When will this vessel be completed, and in what area will it operate?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., Collingwood, Ontario. Two proposals:	$1,914,000-$1,930,000; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, P.Q. Two proprosals: $1,969,000-$1,985,000; Dosco Industries Limited, Halifax Shipyard, Halifax, N.S. Six proposals ranging from: $1,641,821 to $1,732,076; Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, N.S. Two proposals: $1,634,568-$1,713,661; Geo. T. Davie and Sons Ltd., Lauzon, P.Q. Six proposals ranging from: $1,731,478 to $1,890,909; Port Weller Dry Docks Ltd., St. Catharines, Ont. Five proposals ranging from: $1,586,000 to $1,678,500; Saint John Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B. Six proposals ranging from $1,839,000 to $1,949,000.
2.	An analysis of all tenders including timing is now being made.
3.	In the tenders completion dates range from 12 to 23 months from date of awarding of a contract. Operation will be in Atlantic coast waters with headquarters at Halifax.

May 26. 1965
Questions


PROPOSED SALE OF SASKAIR TO NORCANAIR
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What proposals were presented to the Air Transport Board by the Government of Saskatchewan and/or Norcanair (North Canada Air Ltd.) of Prince Albert with regard to the sale of Sask-air to Norcanair?
2.	What assurances, rulings, or decisions have been given by the Air Transport Board to (a) the Government of Saskatchewan and/or (b) Norcanair with regard to the sale of Saskair to Norcanair?
3.	On what date were any such assurances, rulings, or decisions made?
4.	What authorizations have been given by the Air Transport Board to Norcanair so that it can either commence or continue operations?
5.	Have any representations been made by Air Canada to the Air Transport Board regarding the name Norcanair being used by North Canada Air Ltd. of Prince Albert?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Air
Transport Board advises as follows:
1.	No proposals have been received from the Government of Saskatchewan. North Canada Air Limited has made application, in accordance with Air Transport Board requirements, for transfer of licences from Saskair.
2.	No assurances, rulings or decisions have yet been given by the Air Transport Board.
3. See answer to 2.
4. See answer to 2.
5.	No.


MICHELLE SAUNIER
Mr. Ricard: 1.	Is Michelle Saunier, under indictment by a New York Grand Jury, a Canadian citizen?
2.	What is her place of birth?
3.	When did she enter Canada for the first time?
4.	What is her present immigration status?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	Metz, France.
3.	She was admitted to Canada at Quebec city as a landed immigrant on June 6, 1957.
4.	Canadian citizen by naturalization on the 28th of November 1963.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Stenson: 1.	With regard to the trade association which made representations to the Minister of Industry in favour of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, what percentage represented large car manufacturers and what percentage represented the car parts industry?
2.	Of the 17 companies who made representations opposed to the Canada-U.S. auto parts agreement, what percentage represented the large car
[Mr. Robichaud.l
parts manufacturers, and what percentage represented the car parts industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. There is no trade association in Canada which represents both motor vehicle manufacturers and the parts manufacturers. The two associations which made representations supporting the objectives of the Agreement were the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association; the latter represents most of the independent parts manufacturers who manufacture parts for original production.
2. The 17 companies which made representations alleging that they might be adversely affected by the Canada-United States Automotive Trade Agreement are all independent parts manufacturers.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN CARS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Has the Department of Industry any formula in calculating Canadian content in cars manufactured in Canada?
2.	How is this supervised?
3.	How many government inspectors are there in each plant and when were these inspectors appointed?
4.	Will there be Canadian Government inspectors at Dearborn, Michigan after this Department is moved from Oakville, Ontario to the U.S. plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 516 is in four parts.
1.	To qualify as a motor vehicle manufacturer in Canada under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, a motor vehicle manufacturer, in each 12 month production period ending on the 31st day of July, must maintain Canadian value added equal to or greater than the Canadian value added of all vehicles of that class produced in Canada by the manufacturer in the 12 month period ending on the 31st day of July 1964. The elements of cost that enter into the production of vehicles which may be taken into account in computing Canadian value added are set out in detail in the Regulations under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965 (Order in Council P.C. 1965-100, dated 16 January 1965). These elements of cost fall within three general categories: parts and materials to the extent that they are of Canadian origin, wages paid for production labour in Canada and factory overhead.
2.	Each motor vehicle manufacturer in Canada, who operates under the order, is required to supply the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry with
May 26, 1965

such reports as may be required respecting the production and sale of vehicles and parts. In addition, the Department of National Revenue will conduct an audit annually of the records of each manufacturer operating under the order to determine whether he has complied with the basic requiremnts.
3.	It is assumed that the reference to inspectors relates to those government officials required to carry out the auditing of manufacturers' records to determine if they have met the Canadian value added requirement under the order. I understand that the officials charged with this responsibility will not be located in the manufacturers' plants, but will visit the offices of each manufacturer as frequently as is necessary to carry out the audit function.
4.	No. Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers will be required to maintain all necessary records in Canada needed for the administration of the Automotive Plan.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Are there any regulations concerning the overseas export of live horses destined for consumption as meat and, if so (a) in what form have such regulations been published (b) which branch of government is responsible for the administration thereof?
2.	Has the government received any complaints or representations concerning unsatisfactory handling of horses in this export trade and, if so, what is the extent and nature of such complaints or representations?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Motion No. 15 is acceptable to the Government. I understand that motion No. 26 is to be withdrawn. I ask that motion No. 32 be allowed to stand.


PERSONS SENTENCED TO PREVENTATIVE DETENTION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the names, by province, of all persons sentenced to preventative detention under section 660 of the Criminal Code in the past ten years; where, when and by whom they were sentenced; whether they were represented by counsel and. by whom; the past records of all those sentenced; when the sentence was imposed following their conviction as habitual criminals; by whom they were sentenced
Inquiries of the Ministry and the location of the people concerned serving these sentences.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Marlineau:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any Order in Council, direction, instruction, or other communication, by the government to the Treasury Board concerning the granting of contracts or other government business to Autair Helicopters Limited.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of live Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister regarding a petition respecting a change in the constitution of the Province of Quebec. My question appears at page 1615 of Hansard and as reported on page 1616 the Prime Minister replied in this way:
-no such petition, to my knowledge has been received, and I believe I am correct in saying it has not yet been discussed in the Provincial Legislature.
Yesterday, of course, it was discussed in the Legislature, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he gave the Premier of Quebec any assurance to the effect that an address to the Queen by the Legislature of Quebec would carry with it to Her Majesty a recommendation of acceptance regardless of the attitude or opposition thereto of the Legislative Council.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no such resolution has been received by the Federal Government from the Government of Quebec. If and when it is received for transmission to Her Majesty, at the request of the Government of Quebec, it will be considered at that time and the normal course will be followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a statement made by the Premier of Quebec yesterday, which I have in narrative form, "repeating a promise received from Mr. Pearson to the effect that the Government would acquiesce to any such request from Quebec". Yesterday I asked this question and there was no reply, so I will ask it again. Did the Prime Minister in discussions with the Premier of Quebec give him the assurance that a unilateral re-

May 26. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry quest of this kind by the Legislature, regardless of objections in the Legislative Council, would be passed on to the Queen with a recommendation from the Government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such assurance was given, nor could it be given until this Government received the text of the proposed resolution. When that text is received it will be considered in the normal way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I again return to my question. Did the Prime Minister give that assurance to the Premier of Quebec as the Premier of Quebec said he did? That is my question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said twice, and I will repeat it a third time, that I told the Premier of Quebec that a resolution if and when it was sent to the Federal Government would be considered in the normal way.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what he said.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Last week the Minister promised to look into reports to the effect that there had been some dissention in the ranks of the staff of the National Centennial administration, and particularly with reference to a suggested breakdown of liaison between himself and the Commissioner. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has had an opportunity to look into this matter? Can he now give the House the assurance that the Commissioner has stated categorically that he is satisfied with the state of affairs; and second, has he received categorical assurance from the Commissioner that he is prepared to continue in his present position?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to report on this matter, because I have been away accompanying His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran in Quebec City and Montreal. I came back only yesterday evening. But I will certainly be very glad to communicate again with the Commissioner, and I still hope it will be possible for the whip of each party to supply me with a list of names of Members who are interested in

meeting the officials of the Commission, if such a meeting can be arranged.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister whether, in the discussions which he did have with the Commissioner, the latter gave a categorical undertaking that he was prepared to carry on in his present position.


Maurice Lamontagne: This was certainly my impression, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any further administrative arrangements been made to put Mr. Fisher in charge of the Commission of which he is the head?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner is still, and has always been, in full charge of the Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to question the Secretary of State further on his answer that this was his impression. Does he not know for certain whether Mr. Fisher gave the categorical assurance that he would stay, from the conversation he had with Mr. Fisher last week?


Maurice Lamontagne: So far as I can recall, Mr. Speaker, the question of resignation was never raised.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then I take it these articles we have read in the press are false.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I intended to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State in the interests of getting honest answers from Ministers and those responsible in this House. I call attention to the Minister's answer to the recent question, when he said that his absence from the House was due to the fact that he was escorting the Shah of Iran. I would refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said:
The Secretary of State has been out of the House because he has been indisposed and under doctors' care-
It is time we had honesty from at least one quarter of the House.
May 26, 1965



ROY At, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT OP OMBUDSMAN
On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mir. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. It relates to the fact that during the last session the Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended to the House that the office of Ombudsman be established. In the recent Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister indicated that he would be appointing a Royal Commission to further investigate this recommendation. Could the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to appoint such a Commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that before long it will be possible to make an announcement in regard to the Royal Commission to deal with this very important matter.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Since we have had nice weather in Ottawa all week long while it has been raining all week long in the Saguenay-Lake St. John region because of the rain-making machines used by the Quebec minister of natural resources, does the Minister of National Health and Welfare propose to go ahead with the investigation she promised us on the effect which the use of those rain-making machines can have on the health of the people in that region?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of one's health, may I suggest to the hon. Member that the best advice I can give is, when it rains, come in out of the wet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Cape Breton South.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member for Cape Breton South was called before the hon. Member for Lapointe. I think we should proceed in an orderly fashion. The hon. Member for Cape Breton South.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
I am sure she does not rule the roost in the Saguenay-Lake St. John region nor within her own party. I should like to ask her whether she has decided or will decide to have the investigation she promised us on the ill effects which the use of rain-making machines can have on the health of the people? I believe this matter comes under her department and I know that it is urgent and important.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I assume my hon. friend is being serious about this matter. I am, afraid I have not had any information about this except that contained in questions asked me in the House. I would be very grateful if the hon. Member would come and see me and explain the situation to me, and perhaps together we can undertake a proper investigation into this question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesier-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the Government's decision to close No. 31 O.A.D., Debert, Nova _ Scotia, what safeguards are being taken to protect the civilian employees of long and faithful service from lay-off or demotion?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there was a press release issued some time ago on this subject, I think last week, which said that the majority of the civilian personnel em-
1672	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ployed at the depot will be reassigned to other national defence duties. That is the guarantee we gave.


POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR RELEASED EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question posed yesterday by the hon. Member for Cape Breton South, I am informed by officials of my department that no notifications of termination of employment were sent to employees at the Point Edward Naval Base over the week end.
I can only presume that my hon. friend refers to a letter which was sent to those classified civil servants previously laid off during the phasing out period prior to the 1st of April and which informs them of their rights and privileges under the Civil Service Act. Press reports regarding this letter appearing in a recent edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, are in error, and a statement has been issued by the district representative of the Civil Service Commission denying these reports.
Although the employees now on strength at Point Edward Naval Base have not yet officially been informed that they are scheduled for eventual lay-off, instructions have been issued by the Department of National Defence that all employees for whom positions will not be available with the Department of Transport are to be placed on official lay-off lists to ensure their preferential treatment. This action is being taken to protect the employees' lay-off rights and benefits under provisions of the Civil Service Act in the event that they resign to accept employment elsewhere.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has said that there was an error in the press report, and I apologize for my follow up with regard to it. However, the Minister has made a statement to the effect that these men have not yet been officially informed. I am afraid that anybody who reads the answer he has provided today will take it as official notice that they are to be laid off.
This is my question to the Minister. His concern seems to be for the 140 employees remaining who he says are going to be placed on a preferential list. What about the preferential list that was provided for the three or four hundred men already laid off, and what

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
happened to the "successful" program undertaken by the Minister's predecessor in placing these men? If there has been any success in that program, will the Minister provide one or two names out of the 400 who were laid off?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would think I am not the one who is mixed up. I just said that the 140 people to whom the hon. Member referred in his question yesterday were laid off prior to the 1st of April, and these are the people for whom we are now providing preferential treatment under the Civil Service Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Malcolm MacInnis: One more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, we have only half an hour for questions today. How many supplementaries are going to be allowed?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that if we get into too many supplementaries the tendency is to get into argument. Perhaps it would be best to put the question on the order paper. I cannot judge, of course, before the supplementary is asked.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. If I were to put a question on the order paper with respect to the unemployment situation in Cape Breton South, could the Minister guarantee an answer within three months?


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Is the minister aware of the fact that several communities in my riding which are located in the lower part of the north shore of the St. Lawrence are isolated by ice at the present time? In view of this emergency and in order to supply the people by ship, does the minister intend to give immediate instructions to have an icebreaker of the government sent in the area with a heli-
May 26, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1673
copter to service those people who have been isolated and without any communication with the outside world for a month?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the situation which the hon. gentleman has described in his question is known to the Department, and we are making every effort to have an icebreaker relieve this situation as quickly as possible, tTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would not need the rain-making machines of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region to thaw up the north shore?


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Lapointe refers to the Saguenay region, I would like to make it very clear that he is not referring to the Saguenay riding, but rather to the Saguenay-Lake St. John district.


Gilles Grégoire: The kingdom of Saguenay.


Gustave Blouin: It is neither the kingdom of Saguenay nor the Saguenay-Lake St. John region that I have the honour to represent in this house.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could take advantage of the question asked by the hon. Member for Lapointe to give an answer to a question asked the other day by the hon. Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, who asked for a full statement on the operating conditions of the Halifax International Airport. I have had a statement prepared for circulation, and I would be very happy to table the statement for the information of hon. Members. I doubt whether I should take up the time of the House in reading it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree with this course?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS


AFFIDAVIT RESPECTING SEAFARERS UNION ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of a trade union for 24 years I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister a copy of an affidavit signed by Francis James Ains-borough, who was the nominee of the Federal Department of Labour to the election committee of the Seafarers' International Union? Does this affidavit in part state that article 13, section 3a, covering the election of officers, business agents and patrolmen, was not complied with in more than one respect during the election of officers of the Seafarers' International Union and, if so, has the Minister any comment to make with respect to this affidavit on the part of his Department's nominee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have grave doubt that this question is in order. I received notice of it only a moment ago and have not had time to consider it carefully, but it seems to me at first glance to be asking for a legal opinion. In any event this is the type of question that should be on the order paper.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker I should like to follow this up with a question I asked the Prime Minister last week. I asked him whether he would talk with the Minister of Labour and convince him to reassemble the Industrial Relations Committee and extend its terms of reference to call for witnesses and papers, so that Committee may complete the work it undertook in relation to the maritime union trustees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the committee meeting is that when the procedural resolution is dealt with, we hope to set up the committee. Presumably the estimates of the Department of Labour could then be sent to the appropriate committee, which would provide an opportunity for Members to deal with any aspect of the operations of the Department, including the item with respect to the maritime trustees. That would seem to be the efficient way to meet the point made by my hon. friend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without asking for a legal opinion I would ask the Minister to inform the House whether he has received the affidavit I referred to in my previous question.
1674	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have the affidavit.


VANCOUVER-THREATENED STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Labour which was taken as notice for the Minister of Labour. The question can be found on page 1559 of Hansard. It is a matter of urgent concern in Vancouver. At that time I asked about the negotiations going on between grain workers local 333 and the elevator operators, and whether any success had been achieved in preventing a strike. I was promised last Friday that the question would be drawn to the attention of the Minister and that a reply would be given on Tuesday. Is it possible for the Minister of Labour to give us a progress report at least on the situation at the port of Vancouver?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Talks between the terminal elevator employers and the grain workers union were held intermittently during the past week. Talks were not held over the long week end. It is my expectation that talks will be resumed later this week in an effort to settle this dispute. At present we are taking steps to effect the resumption of these talks as soon as possible.


Harold Edward Winch: Has there been any suggestion of a strike or lockout?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it would be my firm hope, because of the vital importance of this operation to the economy, that a successful settlement could be effected without either of these eventualities.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Did he receive a resolution from the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus protesting against the policy of the C.B.C. which allows the fellow-traveller leftists, the agnostics, the terrorists and other fomenters

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
of discord to promote class struggles and contempt for religious, civil and legal authorities? In the affirmative, does he intend to take action with respect to this resolution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that a question of this type could easily be put on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. On April 5 I placed question No. 17 on the order paper. Since it is now some seven weeks since that question was placed on the order paper, would the Minister give me some idea when I may expect an answer with regard to this important matter?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into the matter.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Did he receive any requests for assistance from farmers in the Shawinigan-Three Rivers district who, owing to frost, lost considerable amounts of money in their raspberry crops, one of the important agricultural specializations in that district?


Harry William Hays: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CHANGE IN DAIRY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I
should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. In view of the representations by the dairy farmers of Canada to the Minister this morning, does the Minister contemplate making any changes during the year 1965-66 in his new dairy policy?
May 26, 1965


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to answer this. If we do make changes they will be announced in the regular way. I did not indicate to the delegates this morning that there would be any change, but that there could be.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: On May 11, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I said that an investigation was being conducted to determine whether the printed matter distributed by an association called "Natural Order" and whose address is 1630 Alberni Street, Vancouver 5, B.C., was such that it should be denied the use of mail facilities.
First, I wish to thank all members who gave me the co-operation I requested by sending me documents which they found reprehensible. Thanks to this help, officers of my department, in co-operation with those of the Department of Justice, were able to determine that certain documents from this so-called "Natural Order" association were of such a nature that no normal person could help but consider them as hate-spreading literature.
Having heard the opinions of my advisers, there is no longer any doubt in my mind that the distribution of such matter through the Canadian mail constitutes an infraction. Consequently, I ordered today that the use of the mail be refused from now on to David Stanley, the association known as "Natural Order" and to any person, regardless of his name and address, who might be implicated in the distribution of these offensive publications.
My order is provisional and Mr. Stanley will be duly informed that he can appeal therefrom. If he does, his appeal will be heard in the usual manner by a board of revision which, after considering the evidence, will recommend on my initial action, that is whether the provisional prohibition order should be revoked or whether it should be made final.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister say whether amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act will be brought before the House, and whether the Bill will be submitted to a special or standing committee as was done in 1960, so that civil servants can make representations?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Progress is being made on this, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer as to when it will be presented to the House. I will be glad to give consideration to the suggestion just made by my hon. friend.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
In order to enable municipalities to plan projects in time, could the minister tell the house whether municipalities may be assured that the winter works program will be renewed next year and whether the announcement in this regard will be made shortly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is it a fact that the officials of his Department are preparing plans to institute a Canada free trade policy for the Canadian electronics industry similar to the United States-Canada auto treaty?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As hon. Members will have seen from newspaper reports, a finding recently made by the Tariff Board contained suggested tariff
1676	COMMONS DEBATES	May 26, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry changes in relation to the electronics industry. At the request of representatives of the electronics industry a meeting is to take place between those representatives and the Department to discuss their views.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If such a treaty is contemplated, would it be brought before this House for discussion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think this is looking a little far ahead. The question is really hypothetical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. This is really not hypothetical in view of the experience of the House with regard to the auto agreement, which we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss on the initiative of the Government. Can the Minister give the House some assurance that before the Canadian Government commits itself to an agreement for the rationalization of the electronics industry the matter will be discussed in the House of Commons?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I still think the question is hypothetical, in that no suggestions have yet been made for what the hon. Member refers to as the rationalization of the electronics industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the Minister undertake to announce in the House when such an agreement has been concluded?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If such an agreement is concluded and the House is in session, I would be only too glad to make such an announcement in the House.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Perth):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Have there been similar discussions going on with regard to the furniture industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The function and purpose of the Department of Industry is to provide assistance to the industrial organizations in Canada looking toward an increase in their efficiency and their expansion. A necessary component or a generally necessary component of expansion is some degree of rationalization, particularly an increase in exports. All this involves continued discussions between the Department or representatives of the Department and the industries concerned. I think all Members will share with me the hope that such discussions will lead to the successful rationalization and expansion not only of the furniture industry but all other industries in Canada.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can he say if the Government has sent representatives or has been invited to send observers to the international conference now being held in London on the price of gold, in the course of which a suggestion has been made that the price of gold be doubled?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Again I think this is highly hypothetical. So far as sending representatives is concerned, the answer is no.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. I do not think it is hypothetical because this conference is actually taking place. Has the Canadian Government made any representations to the International Monetary Fund or the United States Government or any other Government concerning the advisability of increasing the world price of gold?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The views of the Canadian Government on this matter are well known. They are to maintain the price of gold at its present level.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, has there been any consultation between any of those countries represented at that conference and the Canadian Government on the fixing of the price of gold at $50 per ounce?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would not like these questions, and I am sure my hon. friends would not wish these questions to lead to any speculation concerning the intention, thought or purpose of any change in the price of gold. So far as the Canadian Government is concerned this is not the way to increase international liquidity.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was, have there been any consultations with the Canadian Government by any of these countries to the effect that fixing the price of gold at $50 an ounce would indeed provide for extra liquidity and bring about the widespread expansion of international trade?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government and the Bank of Canada are fully aware of this proposal. As I say, the Canadian Government is opposed to it. My hon. friend seems to think this would be an effective way
May 26. 1965

of increasing international liquidity and international trade. I think this particular question was settled rather conclusively in the negative many years ago.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the Government received any representations from the gold mining industry in Canada with regard to this matter, and are their views contrary to the views just expressed by the Minister?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: Can the
Minister tell us whether this subject came up for discussion during recent negotiations with the Government of France, either with himself or any one of the other members of the Cabinet?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not with me, because I did not take part in those negotiations.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Olson:
That this House recognize the need for improving its proceedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1. That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
House of Commons Procedures
2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech and I do not claim to be an expert on this question, but I should like to make a few remarks concerning this proposed change in certain parts of the standing orders of the house.
I should first like to point out to the house that it is rather surprising to see that it is those who abused the most the rules of this house who today want to change those rules. In this respect, one has only to recall the abuses of those who are now sitting on the front benches, for instance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), his colleague and former minister of justice, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of Transport (Mr. 1678	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures Pickersgill) who have all literally abused the privileges of the house, more particularly during the 1962 session. They are the ones who, today, would like to prevent present members of the opposition from having their say in the house.
It will be recalled that on the question of unemployment, so often debated in the house, your predecessor in the Chair had to call the present Secretary of State for External Affairs to order, but that he and his colleague, the present High Commissioner in London, with unqualified boldness, challenged time and again the Speaker of the house.
In the study of this proposal one cannot but find that it is a package, if you will permit me the expression, a very nice package containing something which is surely quite astonishing, in spite of all the precautions taken to advise the house on the various procedural changes that were intended. Now, those changes have but one purpose, according to me, and that is to bring in some form of closure rule, a gag of some kind. And everybody finds it revolting that, in 1965, the government could have such a measure accepted.
It is the duty of the opposition to examine closely and study down to their finest details the legislation and proposals put before the house. I am firmly convinced that what the government is after in the proposal now before us is a method by which it can be sure of having the closure rule accepted.
Last Friday, I was quite impressed by what the President of the Privy Council said v/hen he found some sort of an objection to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Mac-naughton) permanently occupying the chair. The reason he apparently wished to give then-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. My words are on record, and the objection I took was to his leader, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, misleading the House in what he said about the subject of a permanent Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: When it comes to misleading the hon. gentleman stands in first place.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the President of the Privy Council to hear first my argument, and then refute it if he did not like it. But it seems to me I heard him say the other day that his main
fMr. Ricard.l
DEBATES	May 26, 1965
objection to having the present hon. Member for Mount Royal occupying the presidency of this House on a permanent basis was that he had too great a majority, and it was for that reason that he had been suggested as permanent Speaker by the Leader of the Opposition.


George James McIlraith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member does not want to persist in misrepresenting the remarks I made. My remarks are on record in Hansard, and I took no such position as that indicated by the hon. Member. 1 raised no objection whatever to the appointment of the present Speaker as a permanent Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that is not a question of privilege.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would only point out to the President of the Privy Council that I am interpreting his words.


George James McIlraith: Don't misinterpret them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If I am wrongly interpreting them it is just too bad, but I am sure many other hon. Members and many people across the country interpreted his words in the same manner as I did.


George James McIlraith: Please don't misinterpret.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am sorry that for once I do not agree with the President of the Privy Council, whom I consider one of my best friends, but I would tell him that I was very much surprised that he, as President of the Privy Council, would come in front of the House suggesting that to have the privilege of occupying the Chair as a permanent Speaker, one must first of all have a small majority.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few remarks to those already made in the house and say that I am one of those who would like to see the procedure of the house improved to enable us in a positive way to do our work more efficiently. On the other hand, for efficiency's sake, opposition members should not be asked to neglect their responsibilities because in the immediate past, since the present government has been at the helm, the official opposition worked tremendously hard on many occasions to improve legislation which was far from being ready to come before the house.
If the Canadian people had to do without the good offices of the Conservative opposi-
May 26. 1965

tion, they would have everything to lose because we are here to make sure that the legislation passed by the members is to the advantage of the people.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I shall resume my seat, and 1 assure the members of the government that we, too, want to work efficiently. In fact, the record of our party shows that we have not very much to learn from those who, during electoral campaigns, stated that they had the answer to all our problems but who, once in office, have shown the people that they were quite unable to solve them.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, since our group has already made its views known concerning the changes in the standing orders and since we also intend to support the new amendments to be moved by the government, X merely wish to say a few words about the staff, that is the reporters and interpreters, who will have to remain on duty at meal-time, if the proposed amendments are accepted, while the members will be able to have their meals or perform other duties.
I appreciate that it is necessary to get on with the business of the house which is ever increasing and getting more important, but I feel that the services provided to the house by our devoted and efficient staff should be kept in mind and that it is essential to think about these people before imposing this extra work on them.
If it is utterly impossible to allow the staff of the house to get away at meal-time, it will be imperative to increase substantially the number of employees so that their situation becomes a little more human.
Mr. Speaker, considering that sessions now last 15 to 16 consecutive months, considering also that most employees had to work in the House of Commons continually for a period of about six to eight months a year, we can realize the extra work that this may involve; that is why I would like to warn the government against this situation so that it may right now start recruiting competent and devoted employees. Incidentally, I may say that it is certainly possible to find here, in Canada, competent people, without having to look for them in other countries.
In my opinion, it will be necessary to increase the salaries, make advertisements if necessary, in brief, spend the money necessary to attract more competent people, before going in other countries to seek employees for the House of Commons.
House of Commons Procedures
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to another small matter. I want to warn you against the fact that the question period will be shortened.
The opposition does not seem to have raised a great deal of objection to the proposed amendment, but in my opinion, the Speaker will have to look toward the opposition side rather than the government side because if government members were to ask questions for 30 minutes, the opposition members would have no opportunity to ask any.
However, should this happen, protests would surely be raised by the opposition, which is ready to co-operate with the government so long as government members co-operate with the opposition. At any rate, I am convinced that Liberal Members will be able to have their questions answered by getting in touch directly with the ministers concerned without having to go through the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to submit to you and I hope that the government will take them into consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question I should like to speak for my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) who has already spoken on the subamendment, merely to indicate what the Government would be prepared to do by way of an amendment to paragraph 1 along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during his speech at the time he proposed his amendment, in the hope that this will commend itself generally to all Members of the House.
In order to avoid becoming involved in a lot of procedural difficulty, if what I am now going to suggest should prove to be generally acceptable to the House, I hope that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre will be willing to withdraw their amendment, and amendment to the amendment. In the event that is the case, someone on this side of the House-I assume my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council-will be prepared to amend paragraph 1 in the way in which I am now going to indicate.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to read the paragraph as it would be after the proposed amendment, noting the amending part and then re-reading that part. In the manner we suggest it should be amended it would then read as follows:
1680	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates-[DOT]
Now comes the part to which I want to draw special attention, and the part which I will read again.
-excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates. That a Special Committee of the House,-
Perhaps I do not need to read the rest of the paragraph since there is no proposed change to that part.
If I may, I will read again the words of the proposed change which are:
*-excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates.
That would be the case whether or not they were introduced after the main estimates were approved. After my colleague asked me to put this suggestion to the House, I did not have time to check it, but I am quite sure that the words of this proposal are precisely the same in meaning as those used in the subamendment moved by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat.
The Government does not feel that we should have 36 days and except the supply motions, because if we persist with the proposal in the second resolution, No. 15 on the order paper, and extend the hours of sittings of the House, this provision would, I am informed by those who have made calculations, and I hasten to add that I have not made them myself but believe them to be accurate, have the effect of providing more time for supply than was used in all sessions before 1956, with the exception of one or two immediately prior to general elections, and more than was used during the greater number of sessions prior to 1946.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Whatever the arguments of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) -and I listened to them carefully the other day-may be against having legislative proposals considered between six and eight o'clock, I cannot think there would be any objection to having discussion of estimates at that time. It would therefore provide a very

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
substantial increase in the amount of time for the consideration of estimates. It does seem to us that if we are not simply to enlarge the amount of total time available, this would provide as much time as has normally been taken by the House in what might, for want of a better word, be described as "normal" sessions. In order to make it possible for this motion to be made without getting into procedural difficulties, I think it would be necessary for the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) to withdraw his subamendment, so that the amendment could be withdrawn, if the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre was prepared to do that.
I just want to say one further word about this proposal. I listened with care and interest to what the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said last night. I agree with him, if I understood him correctly-and I think I did-that we are not likely to do a great deal to shorten debates by the proposals that the Government is putting forward. What we are seeking to do is to find enough time within a year-and I echo and re-echo what the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre said about having an occasional recess and an occasional time for Ministers to do their administrative work, because it is a real problem-to carry on Parliament in something like an orderly way and do all the business that does require to be done; and not give an extravagant amount of time to some things and skimp on others, which I am afraid has very often happened.
I have always felt that the Minister was lucky who got his bills on at the very end of the session, when people were tired and perhaps the bills went through with almost no debate. That is not the way we should do our business. What we are seeking to do by this whole scheme is, not to reduce the amount of time for debate but to provide for the orderly use of the time that is available. If we are going to function effectively-and here again the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre spoke very wisely, I thought, last night-and if we are going to have the time for the other things that must come before us, there is absolutely no question that there has to be some limit on the amount of time taken for supply.
I recognize, and I think every hon. Member does recognize, the very valid points that were made by several hon. Members on the other side of the House-and I think they are recognized by my right hon. friend the
May 26, 1965	COMMONS
Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and certainly by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) on this side of the House-who said that it would be quite wrong to have any rules which would prevent an adequate consideration by the House of any new elements in supplementary or additional estimates. And it would be quite wrong to have rules which would enable the Government, for any reason, to bring in something novel after the time for the consideration of supply had been exhausted and attempt to put it through the House without debate.
I think it will be recalled that on two occasions in the House when we voluntarily put limitations on supply, toward the end of last session and once on an earlier occasion, on both occasions the Government did have in those estimates a novel item which was not a true supplementary; and on both occasions those items were withdrawn because it was felt it would be an abuse of the rules of the House to attempt to do anything of a novel character without proper and adequate debate. I do not think the same consideration applies to the same degree with what might be called true supplementaries. I take the familiar example where you have voted $50,000 for a wharf and you need about $3,000 more to complete it; the House has already approved the wharf, and there is hardly a great matter of principle involved in the estimating that has gone into it, unless it is, again, something inordinate. In any event, even those estimates would not be subject to the limitation under the proposal that the Government is willing to accept.
The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, in his contribution to the debate at an early stage, did indicate clearly that he was putting forward a proposal but that he was putting it forward, if I understood him correctly, not in a last ditch attitude at all but as part of a co-operative effort to get the best rules we could possibly get to meet the two conditions that we are seeking to obtain; one is to ensure that there is adequate debate and an adequate opportunity for every point of view to be put forward in the House, and the other to see that there is time in the course of a year to do all the multifarious business that under modern conditions a parliament is called upon to do.
These two objectives are not easy to achieve. I think we all recognize, especially those of us who have had the opportunity of sitting on both sides of the House, that the two objectives are not too easy to reconcile.
DEBATES	1681
House of Commons Procedures I think perhaps when one has sat on both sides of the House he does have an appreciation of this fact, particularly when he has been a minister and then ceased to be a minister for a while, as I did. I think I learned quite a lot that I did not understand when I first came into the House.


Mr. Churchill:: That is right. Don't stop learning now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I hope that, like the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, who though he calls himself a Conservative, every so often produces the most startling, revolutionary ideas, I too will go on modifying my views when the facts seem to call for a modification, and will not be ashamed to say I have done it. I hope the same spirit actuates the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre who, though he is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge, is so modest that I know he would be the last person to suggest that he knew it all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better watch him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel sure that in the cooperative spirit which throughout the greater part of this debate up to now has been manifest over this matter, and which I trust is going to continue, the suggestions I am now putting forward in response to those made on the other side of the House, and putting forward for the Government, will be found acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should just repeat, so it will be on the record at the close of what I have to say, what the Government is prepared to do if the present subamendment and amendment could be withdrawn. The Government is prepared to substitute for that this phrase:
Excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not propose to say anything at this time but I could not refrain from doing so, having listened to the philosophical dissertation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). He spoke with restraint and held out the olive branch, always an admirable trait provided one understands exactly what is being offered and is not carried away by the facility of words which at all times characterizes the hon. gentleman. I have always said of him that he is one who has devoted himself to a study
May 26. 1965

House of Commons Procedures of parliament, and as such I always listen to him with the greatest of attention, modified of course by the circumstance that at all times I have to review carefully what he says to be entirely convinced that his arguments do not have some ulterior purpose.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with the views he expressed as to what it means to have seen parliament from both sides. That is something that those who are theorists in the writing of books on political economy do not possess; therefore parliament does not mean to many of them what it means to those of us who have been privileged to serve.
Having said that, as I listened to the hon. gentleman I could not but express the hope that this entire motion should have been available for discussion in committee so that all of us would be able to ask questions, secure information and make effective suggestions for change based on the answers received. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman did not give the House the views of the Government regarding a permanent Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would permit me-


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will wait a moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me on this point to say that I said at the start of my remarks that I was addressing myself strictly to the subamendment and the amendment. I did not want to forfeit my right to speak at a later stage on the broader aspect of this question if it may seem desirable to do so, but I did want to make very clear what the Government was prepared and was ready to do about the particular matter now before the House. Therefore I felt it would have been a mistake to mix with it any extraneous matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree, of course that it is an extraneous matter; it is essential to the application of the change of rules, taking them all together, that the purposes in mind, as enunciated by the Minister, can be achieved only if there is occupying the Chair of this House a Speaker totally removed from politics. That is not an extraneous matter; for after all, when the Minister raises himself to the heights in enunciating the purposes the Government has in mind, while he speaks in that conciliatory manner the bludgeon of a threatened

election appears in the Liberal press of Canada. Either we accept-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to continue my argument. I sit here and listen to him, and however outrageous the proposition advanced I sit and suffer in a high degree of silence so far as making interruptions is concerned. I repeat that the threat of an election hangs over this chamber. One after another in the last couple of days the Liberal press has been threatening an election; and that threat has not been entirely forgotten by one of those on the Government benches. I refer to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) in the conversations which he had with representatives of the opposition groups. "Either you take or you get out"; that has been his attitude. That is an attitude on the part of-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


George James McIlraith: Would the right hon. gentleman give me the courtesy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is rising on a question of privilege.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the conversations in the meetings held between the House Leaders dealing with the business of the House are always treated as confidential. On one occasion the House Leader for the Official Opposition sought to break that rule in the House. I persisted in the House in refusing to break that rule of confidentiality and I was later thanked by the House Leader for the Opposition for taking that stand-


John George Diefenbaker: What is your question of privilege?


George James McIlraith: -although at the moment he was inclined to break it.
May 26, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1683


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Has the President of the Privy Council a question of privilege at this point?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he has, and he is raising it very precisely and clearly, I hope. Now, the Leader of the Opposition today, who has not attended any of these meetings, purports to state what I said and what my position was at those meetings. I tell the right hon. gentleman that he has no right to break the privilege granted to certain Members of the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair would like to hear the point being made by the President of the Privy Council, and perhaps this point could be made and completed as quickly as possible.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will make it as quickly as possible and I will be very glad to do so. Today the Leader of the Opposition is purporting to say to this House what I said in those meetings. I want to point out that not only did the Leader of the Opposition not attend those meetings, but he has no right through that indirect procedure-even if what he said about what went on at the meetings was true, which-


John George Diefenbaker: Well, is it not true?


George James McIlraith: No, it is not.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it is.


George James McIlraith: It is not, and you know it. But the Leader of the Opposition has no right to break the privilege of confidentiality given to the House Leaders when they meet together to discuss the business of the House, and he cannot strip that away by the devious method he is seeking to use. Therefore I raise this question of privilege for the attention of the House at this moment. I want also to point out, of course, that what the right hon. gentleman said is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of privilege there. I made very clear the suggestion that the hon. gentleman had followed the course I mentioned. I want to say further, when he talks of confidentiality, that within 15 or 20 minutes after he had this discussion with a representative from this party, a member of the press was able to say what the Minister had taken as his stand-namely that we must accept the proposition in advance or else we are going to have an election. I want to make that very clear.
House of Commons Procedures


George James McIlraith: I would point out that I talked to no member of the press.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest the Leader of the Opposition has the floor at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Only the hon. gentleman could have given this to the press, no one else; and it was he who broke the confidence, if there was any.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just corridor gossip.


George James McIlraith: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I must persist. I did not break confidence and I do not propose nor intend to. Furthermore, I will say to the right hon. gentleman that to my knowledge his representatives on that committee have never broken the confidentiality, but he himself tries to do so. By innuendo he tries to accuse other persons of things of which they are not guilty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what these mumblings are from the hon. gentleman.


George James McIlraith: Some Members of this House try to act honourably even though the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the discussion or debate going on now between the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the Privy Council is entirely relevant to the particular resolution which we ought to be considering at the moment. Perhaps we might return to the subject matter of the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say this to the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. Are you ruling I have not got the floor?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the Minister of Transport-


John George Diefenbaker: The same old muzzle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am raising a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: House of Commons Procedures


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could we have order, please. I understand that the Minister of Transport wants to raise a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is very simple and very brief. The President of the Privy Council stated categorically that he made no such statement and no such threat as the right hon. gentleman says he did and repeats as corridor gossip. I suggest it is a rule of the House, Sir, that the word of an hon. Member must be accepted and I suggest that the right hon. gentleman follow the ordinary decencies of the House and accept the hon. gentleman's word.


John George Diefenbaker: First I want to say that if the hon. gentleman says he did not say that, then there is such a thing as osmosis, because the newspapermen have the story in its entirety including a statement made by the Minister himself in this regard.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no doubt in the right hon. gentleman's mind may I say that I never made such a statement nor did I give any such information to any press reporter.


John George Diefenbaker: Then all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the physical principle of osmosis operates in the relationships between the Minister and the press, with the result that they absorb his feelings and his knowledge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it is the right hon. gentleman's feelings they are absorbing.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me repeat that over and over again the threat has been made that unless we accept the throttle an election is going to be proposed. We are not going to be intimidated in that way. Let that be absolutely clear and definite. We have endeavoured to do everything we can to bring about changes in the rules in keeping with the preservation of those things which are necessary to parliamentary rights. It is because of that attitude that in all sincerity I advanced the idea of a non-partisan Speaker, but the reply given by the President of the Privy Council was nothing else but a gratuitous sneer. He said, "Why don't you pick out the Deputy Speaker because he has a small majority". We do not choose Speakers on the basis of their majority, large or small.
We have as Speaker a man long in Parliament, a man of fairness, courtesy and consideration. He will not always be right; no Speaker can be. Sometimes he will be on the wrong side in an argument but we know that the present Speaker will never be on the side

of wrong. I advanced this idea because of the need to assure the maintenance of the proprieties in the House, so that those people who trampled on parliament in 1956 in the pipe line debate will not again be placed in a position where they can deny that which they did at that time when they disgraced the institution of parliament. We want to be sure that is not going to happen again and that our rights are not going to be sacrificed.
I made this proposal in all seriousness, but what was the answer of the President of the Privy Council? He spoke in a condescending manner, but at the very same hour the Prime Minister was stating in Sudbury that the matter would receive consideration and that there would be communication with the Speaker to ascertain the facts. The President of the Privy Council spoke one way and the Prime Minister, with more responsibility and respect for Parliament, spoke the reverse.
In so far as this section is concerned, we come back to this question. Does this Government want to have a Parliament that is effective? If it does, then never have we been closer to the general acceptance of a permanent Speaker than today. That is the feeling of people across the country. Why not accept that? If it is accepted, we will go a long way in the acceptance of the curtailment of those things that are traditionally the rights of parliament, provided we are assured there will be no repetition of the pipe line debate when all the rules of parliament were torn up, when the leader of the C.C.F. of that day, Mr. M. J. Coldwell, rushed up to the mace and when parliament was in a shambles because those sitting opposite at that time, who today again occupy the seats of Government, destroyed those things which can never be repaired. There are a number of them sitting over there today and we want to be sure that their activities in the pipe line debate will not be repeated.
In so far as the section dealing with the examination of the estimates is concerned, an exception has been made in the suggestion put forward by the Minister of Transport. That goes part way. If he is in that spirit, I suggest that the Government should also accept a reasonable number of supply motions I think that at this time six supply motions are unnecessary, provided we have the assurance of a Speaker who will carry out the proprieties and the traditions of parliament in such a way that all of us will realize that they are being observed. I ask this question. Is there anything unreasonable in asking
May 26. 1965

House of Commons Procedures
that in the exception there be included motions to go into committee of supply to the extent of four? I think four motions would be sufficient. If we are going to have six, then in the interest of bringing about that orderly debate that the hon. gentleman mentioned I would be prepared to see the debate on such motions reduced to one day. However, in this House we have a multiplicity of parties and such a move might deny some of them the opportunity to place the views of their respective parties before the House.
Will the Government agree to add to the suggested amendments an exception covering four periods for motions to go into committee of supply? If it will, this in large measure will attain the objectives that the Minister had in mind when he expressed himself so forcibly a few minutes ago and at the same time would preserve the traditional right of the Opposition to move amendments to motions to go into supply. Acceptance of this proposal is not asking too much. The Minister of Transport has already shown a desire to bring about changes in a spirit of conciliation and not to browbeat parliament into the acceptance of something that is unjust. That being so, I make the suggestion that if there is the acceptance of that comparatively minor addition, we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, would be prepared to accept No. 14, Section 1, with the changes that have been suggested by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have often said, and I know it will be quoted back to me, that the time spent on the study of estimates is sometimes wasted time because we take item by item. We get bogged down on a certain item, as the Minister said, and more important ones receive less attention. Everyone who has had the responsibility of Government knows that by the simple course of exhaustion estimates that do not receive full examination are sometimes passed through the House in the last days.
In the United Kingdom, the course followed is not to take item by item. The course followed is to have a pound item, or whatever the nominal amount may be, in respect of each department of government, and then there is a concentration in the discussion on the weaknesses or injustices that have happened during the year, or any suggested changes for betterment in the year ahead. All of us have seen how often there are
22620-108J
discussions regarding sections that are of little or no importance. This is natural when we consider the matter section by section. I know that in bringing in the estimates for various departments one has a great big book of answers. By the time the discussion has taken place one finds that if the book had contained three pages he would have had all the information really required. The civil service works hard to provide a Minister with the fullest information regarding each and every section. This would not be necessary if we had properly organized the examination of the estimates.
Frankly, as I have listened to the arguments and read Hansard, I believe that the idea of sending estimates to committees will be beneficial. It will be beneficial to the Members of the House. It will be beneficial to the cause that we serve. I appeal to the Government and ask that they at least give us their position on the question of a permanent Speaker. Then, I ask that they make an addition to the amendment suggested by the Minister of Transport whereby the number of supply motions would be reduced to four and they would be included in the exceptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat.


An hon. Member:: He cannot speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the House could agree that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat not make a speech, but respond simply to the proposal I made so we would have it in connection with the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) was about to respond to the request that he ask the consent of the House to the withdrawal of his subamendment. Before he does that,
I should like to speak to the subamendment. In so doing, I should like to indicate our attitude toward the suggestions made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) when he spoke earlier this afternoon.
May I say at the outset that he is quite right in saying that our attitude is not one of take it or leave it so far as our amendment is concerned. He is quite right in saying that the amendment I proposed on behalf of this party the other day was not one that we insist must be taken in its entirety. We are bargaining for the best possible arrangements. However, I must say to the Minister of Transport that what he asks us to do, in our
1686	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures view, is too much. May I take a moment longer to emphasize the fact that we are coming at this whole question as Members of a party that wants to see improvements made in our procedures? When we say we want to see improvements made, we have in mind in particular the whole question of the best use of our time. We, therefore, accept the proposition that it makes sense to decide on some kind of over-all limit with regard to the time we spend on estimates.
In this connection, I may say that I listened, as other Members did, with a great deal of interest to the speech made last night by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in which he made a case that is delightful to make for what one might call unlimited free speech. This is something we all believe in, and we would all defend it to the death. The only thing I feel I must say to my neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre is that the desire for unlimited free speech has to be balanced with the need to reach a decision, the need to reach a conclusion on some questions so that we can get on with others. I think he would agree with me that the whole problem of parliamentary procedure is trying to find that balance.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre has seen the light with regard to that balance, so far as estimates are concerned. He is an advocate of unlimited free speech but at the same time he is prepared to accept an over-all time limit so far as the amount of time spent on estimates is concerned. We are talking the same language so far as this part of the motion is concerned. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I regret that we are not in Committee of the Whole so that we might have a much freer discussion of these questions. But I hope that even with Mr. Speaker in the Chair we can agree on a formula so far as the time for estimates is concerned.
The Minister of Transport asks us on this side of the House, and in this party in particular, to withdraw our amendment on the understanding that the Government would move an amendment, the terms of which he read out a while ago. May I say that we cannot do that, for reasons which I shall give in a moment. However, this does not mean that we are totally unwilling to withdraw our amendment if a more acceptable counterproposal can be offered by the Government. The Government's first motion contained the proposal that there should be an over-all time limit on supply of 36 days in a session. It was indicated, for the purpose of supply, that in

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
those 36 days four categories of business would be considered. The first was the 12 days that might be spent on motions that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. The second was the main estimates; third, interim supply, and fourth, supplementary estimates. We stated, in the remarks I made on behalf of this party last Thursday, and in our amendment, that that is going too far. We are prepared to accept the 36 day limit, but included within those 36 days should be only main estimates and interim supply. We think that the 12 days possible when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair should be excluded, and so should supplementary estimates.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are making progress with regard to supplementary estimates. I am prepared to accept the refinement in the subamendment moved by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), which is mainly to the effect that a supplementary estimate of $3,000 at the back of the book, which is to be added to the $50,000 at the front of the book, be called within the 36 days. I think the Government has seen our point that additional estimates brought in at the end of the year or after the main estimates have been approved, should not be included in those 36 days.
We think we have reached agreement on this but, Mr. Speaker, it is still our view that motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply are a different kettle of fish altogether. Merely to call them motions having to do with supply and then to call estimates supply, and to say that both are the same kettle of fish, is playing with words. When we are in Committee of Supply dealing with estimates, whether main, supplementary or interim, we are dealing with estimates; but when we are debating motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair, even though it is to go into Committee of Supply, we are on something which is much more akin to the Debate on the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech, or to the Budget Debate.
Usually these motions are amended and become non-confidence debates. They are in a category completely to themselves and we do not think they should be included with the days that are spent in Committee of Supply. Hence we feel that the Government should give consideration to what I think is the pith of my amendment, namely that there should be a separation of the motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair from all the other ways in which we deal with supply.
May 26, 1965	COMMONS
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a suggestion a moment ago, and I wondered if he had been experiencing some osmosis himself, when he suggested that the number of supply motions in a session be reduced to four from the present six. We would go along with that. As a matter of fact in certain quarters we have proposed that very change, and we are glad he agrees with us. This would cut the time on these debates from 12 days to eight days. But we still think that having done that, those eight days should be outside of the days allotted to supply itself. The way the Leader of the Opposition put it a moment ago was that it would be eight days outside of the 36. In those terms, even that 36 might be negotiable. For example, I might settle for 35; but do not push me too far. The point is that the quantities in this respect are one thing; the principle is another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. Member a purely factual question. I do think what really matters from the Government's point of view is what the total number of days is. It does not matter whether one thing is outside or inside this total; but does he not think that if the supply days, as in the British rule, are inside, it gives the Opposition a greater option? If the Opposition felt they would like to have more time on estimates by dropping one of the supply days it would have that extra day, whereas if these things were in two separate compartments they would not be transferable from one to another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is not osmosis but the Minister must have seen the few notes I made while he was speaking because I was going to come to that very point.
I suppose my hon. friends to the right will want to throw in a gibe or two, but let me put it this way. If there were only one Opposition party, and particularly if we were that party, there would be no problem. But there are four Opposition parties, and the fact that one Opposition party passes up a supply motion in order to have more time for estimates in Committee of Supply is no guarantee that the other parties will not take up that day, and we would be in the position, all of us on the Opposition side, that we might want to follow a certain course but any plans we would make would be thwarted by decisions made in other groups over which we have no control.
I suggest that it would be far better in principle to have these motions outside the
DEBATES	1687
House of Commons Procedures time proposed. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) says it makes no difference to the Government, but I still ask him to consider the difference in principle between the kinds of debates we have. In Committee of Supply we are dealing with estimates, but on motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair we can discuss anything under the sun, and it is usually whatever the Official Opposition decides will be the subject for non-confidence on that particular occasion.
I may say that in a manifesto for parliamentary reform which this party put out some time ago, we suggested this whole practice might be reviewed, that maybe instead of nonconfidence motions being attached to motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply we could have just one motion in a session for Committee of Supply, and then have provision for a number of occasions in a session when Opposition parties might ask for, and get, a one or two day debate on subjects when they arise.
The trouble with the present arrangement is that we get these debates when the Government decides to go into supply, and the Opposition has to decide what is wrong at that particular point. It might be far better if the Opposition could pick the times when subjects should be brought forward. But I am just emphasizing the fact that this is something completely different from the consideration of estimates, namely the debate on motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
I am as co-operative as I can be. I am just as co-operative as the Minister of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: Or the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to see this rule worked out so that it will work, but the Minister is asking too much if he asks me to withdraw the principle of my amendment, which is that the debates on the motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair must be separated from the time allocated for consideration in committee of estimates themselves.
I think we have reached an accommodation on the question of supplementary estimates. I think in all quarters of the House we are agreed on this. We are agreed in all quarters, I believe, that there has to be an over-all time limit on estimates themselves, and I hope the Government will see the
May 26, 1985

House of Commons Procedures justice and the principle of what we are asking for on this point.
I have refrained from suggesting any precise quantities, other than in the proposal that the number of supply motions be cut from six to four. I think this could be done quite easily. On the first we could enter ten departments, on the next two five each, and on the fourth all the rest. We would all be satisfied to make that change. Whether the 36 days should be changed to a figure like 35 is something which is still negotiable, but it does seem to me this is the way to get a rule regarding supply that will be acceptable to the House, and that will work. That is what we want in parliamentary reform. We do not want something that seems to have been handed to us by fiat. We want something we have worked out in discussions among various Members and parties in the House. I think we can do this. Therefore I ask that the Minister of Transport withdraw his request to me to withdraw my amendment, until some other proposal has been made. There are lots of Ministers over there who still have the opportunity to speak and make other proposals. If one comes up that seems to meet common agreement the Government can be assured we will give it favourable consideration.
While I am on my feet I would like to say a few words about another point, and I do so at this time because Your Honour is in the Chair and if I sit down I cannot get up again unless another amendment is moved at some stage. The other point I wish to mention concerns paragraph 2 of item No. 14 on the order paper, which deals with the allocation of time. I spoke at some length about this the other day and indicated our general approval of the principle of allocation of time. I also indicated our approval of the main outlines of the proposed rule set out in Standing Order 15A, but the one phase of 15A which bothers us most-and there are several little details we should like to change, but they are not as important-is that contained in subparagraph 5, namely the situation under which the Government, even though it has been beaten four to one in the Business Committee, can still come back in the House and effect its will if it has a majority of support for the motion it makes.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I recognize that there are certain precautions. I recognize that it takes practically a calendar week to put the provisions of subparagraph 5 into effect. I recognize that a

government is hardly going to go through that week's process unless the matter is serious, unless public opinion is behind it, and unless the issue is the kind in respect of which the government feels it could carry it to the country. However, I still feel that it does not add up for a government to be able to go to the Business Committee with a proposition and be beaten four to one there, but still be able to come back to the House and effect its will.
Various precautions might be considered in this regard, and one would be that instead of the choice being related to a unanimous vote, or just allowing the Government to have its own way, there could be a provision for a unanimous vote, such as we now have, or a provision for a majority vote. It would seem to me that if in the Business Committee there was a majority of three to two, since we now have five parties, that is a condition in respect of which it might be appropriate to have a day's debate and let the House make a decision.
Another precaution might be to provide, as I indicated last Thursday night, that on the last day of an allocated time period, under this rule, the adjournment hour should be lifted so that Members who feel they have something they wish to say would get a chance to say it. By doing that we would admittedly give up the right to filibuster in respect of that particular item, but we would be protecting the rights of Members who feel they have a contribution to make, even though they might have to sit here half or all of the night to do so.
I think also the kind of precaution that could be written into paragraph 5 could relate to some kind of absolute minimum below which no order could be moved. It seems to me that some reasonable time- three or four days per stage, or something like that-might be acceptable so that guarantees of that kind could be put into or added to paragraph 5 of the proposed Standing Order 15 A.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I make this suggestion as one who favours the principle of time allocation. I go along with my hon. friend, the Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), in his defence of the rights of Members to speak, and I go along with him in the defence he made last night in respect of those occasions during which Parliament can by lengthy debate prevent a Government from doing something that is vicious or scandalous. I also feel that the other side of
May 26, 1965	COMMONS
the coin must be looked at, because we have to balance the right of unlimited right of speech and the need for discipline so we can have the kind of situation in which we can deal with all the issues that come before us. It is my concern in respect of a time allocation that there be time for us to deal with the multifarious issues and problems which face us.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that before we finish with item No. 14 on the order paper the Government will not only come forward with an acceptable counterproposal so far as paragraph 1 is concerned, which has to do with time spent on estimates, but will also come forward with an acceptable amendment to subparagraph 5 of proposed Standing Order 15A as set out in paragraph 2 of the resolution.
In relation to both these matters, namely time spent in the committee on estimates and time spent under an allocation, I still feel that the Government is not as impressive as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) thinks it is when it talks about the extra time we are going to get. The Minister told us that what the Government was doing was not cutting down the time for estimates, but giving us more time. I have seen the figures which he says the arithmeticians have worked out, but as I look at them, I am reminded of the information that has been given me to the effect that within the last ten or 12 years, excepting the sessions that ended in dissolution, the total amount of time spent on supply of all kinds was something of the order of 190 hours. We have been given the figures in hours rather than in days for an obvious reason.
We are told that as a result of the rule changes the Government is proposing we will have 198 hours, and that therefore we are being given more time. That suggestion is made on the assumption that the extra time we will have between six o'clock and eight o'clock will actually be extra time used for the consideration of estimates. As I said before, I am afraid that many of those hours will be spent by hon. Members keeping the House going while others go for a meal, and I question the logic of the Minister of Transport when he said earlier today that perhaps there was something in the point I made about its not being desirable to discuss legislation between six and eight, but perhaps we could spend that time discussing the estimates. It seems to me there is a hint there that the estimates are not quite as important
DEBATES	1689
House of Commons Procedures as legislative items, and I know that he does not want to leave that impression.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to misrepresent the point I made. I did not agree with him about legislation, but I said that perhaps he did have a point in that regard. We all know that in respect of estimates a great deal of what is said in the House affects only one or two constituencies, and while it is important to those one or two constituencies and to the hon. Members who want to put their remarks on the record for circulation to an audience larger than the House, that kind of thing done between six and eight would be just as effective as if done at two thirty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept that statement as a restatement of what the Minister said earlier, but the point I wish to make is this. In the earlier part of the session we have no guarantee that the estimates will be available for discussion between the hours of six and eight, particularly if we are going to accept the idea, which I think is a good one in respect of which we are all in approval, of referring estimates to committees. The estimates will be before those committees for some time and there will likely be a few weeks during the early part of the session when the estimates will not have come back from committee for discussion in Committee of Supply. So, even with the best will in the world, we will not be able to discuss the estimates and make constituency speeches between six and eight o'clock, and we will likely be dealing with Government legislative items.
All I am suggesting is that the Government is oversimplifying the matter when it suggests, with a little simple arithmetic, that we will get more time under a time limit than we have without a time limit. Perhaps that is another issue we should deal with when we are considering item No. 15 on the order paper. Perhaps at that time we can deal with the question in respect of committees. Perhaps then we can also deal with the question of appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings and the suggestion of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) regarding a permanent Speakership.
The only comment I want to make at this time in this regard is that I think an issue of this kind regarding the Speakership, particularly if one is talking about a person to fill that position, should be discussed among the parties or among the leaders rather than
1690	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures here. I do not believe that one Member of Parliament, no matter who he is, should stand up and endeavour to name the individual who should be appointed as the first permanent Speaker of the House of Commons. I do not think that is the way to get at that particular problem.
These questions of committees, appeals and the other matters, including the extended sittings between the hours of six and eight, are more related to order No. 15 than the item which we are now discussing, and perhaps we should wait until we are considering that item to discuss these matters. However, I thought I should mention the points I have made, so as to make clear the point that we are putting forward, namely that the Government is not going to add as much time as it thinks it is by this time extension.
I rose at this time to indicate our willingness to co-operate and our willingness to listen to counterproposals, but at the same time I must make it clear that the counterproposal of the Minister of Transport is not adequate to persuade me to withdraw my amendment. I should like to suggest that the Government should come back with another proposal or, and this is the simplest way to do it, accept my amendment and take supply motions out of the 36 day limit. I think I can say right now, as a result of discussions we have had, that if the Government did that my colleagues in this party would agree to a reduction to four supply motions, I am referring of course to motions that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the hon. gentleman. Would he consent also to reducing the number of days from 36 to 30?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at this point I have made a proposition. These are things that might be negotiated through the usual channels, in the usual way. I am sure my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) realizes it is better to come at things in that way. But I say to the Government that in order to get this proposition accepted, in addition to a counterproposal with regard to estimates it must also come back with a counterproposal regarding paragraph 5 of Standing Order 15A. I say that, too, has to be improved.
We are hard bargainers, Mr. Speaker. I know that. We should not be here if we were not. But I also hope I have made it

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
clear that we are interested in the kind of procedural reform that will make this House work better, and I think I am doing a service to this whole cause by refusing to withdraw the amendment that I made in return for what the Minister of Transport has offered. We will hope that in due course, and perhaps soon, there might be a better offer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to say just a word in view of the remarks of the last speaker and those of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) before him. I did not have the pleasure of hearing all his speech but I got the general drift of it, I think, when I came into the chamber. There are certain points that I believe I should deal with.
As far as the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat is concerned, I think he will agree that the proposals we put forward initially on this important matter were proposals for consideration, and they were not put forward in any "take it or leave it" manner. I know perfectly well that when we do that and express our willingness, as I express again now, to consider and accept changes that seem to improve the proposals we are putting forward, we will be accused, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition accused us last night, of being spineless and bending with every breeze. That is a penalty, Mr. Speaker, that you have to pay at times for making concessions in the interest of agreement. But at the same time we have been accused by the same right hon. gentleman of being tyrannical, inflexible, of refusing to accept changes, and threatening what will happen if our proposals do not go through. So we are going to be damned, if I may use that word, whatever we do on this subject.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat did make a certain appeal that we should consider what he has already put forward. We are certainly only too anxious to give that consideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not think it makes very much difference whether, when dealing with supply, we divide it into compartments along the lines the hon. gentleman indicated. I think certainly that that suggestion can be considered. I think the important thing is that we do bring into operation a time schedule, an allocation principle, which will ensure that we do not spend an unreasonable time on estimates, having regard to all the other things that parliament has to do-and they are increasing at every session.
May 26. 1965

The right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, made a proposal this afternoon which would amount to providing 44 days for supply. If you reduce that to hours -and my hon. friend has done some reduction to hours himself-that would be 242 hours, at 5J hours per day. The average over the past years for sessions other than those dissolved before the end of a normal session, for an election, since 1952-when I say "over the years", I mean since 1952-is 190 hours.


George James McIlraith: That includes last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Including last year, Mr. Speaker, it is 190 hours. So the result of this proposal, if it were accepted, would be to add to the number of days allocated to estimates rather than to decrease them, in terms of hours. I do not feel we would be making much progress if we accepted that proposal. Other proposals have been made, some of them by my right hon. friend, which should be considered and undoubtedly will be considered this evening. There can be consultations in the usual way to see if we can come to an agreement, because of course that is what we desire to do.
My hon. friend who has just spoken talked about the desirability of the Government, if it is defeated by a 4 to 1 vote in the consultation between parties, being more flexible in its attitude when it puts a proposal to the House, and he said it should take into account the vote that had previously been taken. Why a 4 to 1 vote? It might be 5 to 1, 6 to 1 or 8 to 1, if there were 7 or 8 parties. Surely it is not strictly fair to say that the comparison would be in terms of 4 to 1. It may be that the one represents, and in normal cases would represent, a majority of the Members of the House. I think you would have to take that into consideration before asking the Government to take action along the line of that particular vote.
However, Mr. Speaker-and I think this has already been said-I agree there is something in the point made by my hon. friend and others, namely that it would require some alteration to the proposals in the resolution in regard to the form of the motion to be put to the House, if that is required, and we should take into consideration some of the points that have been made. We are certainly quite happy to consider that matter.
Reference has been made to the desirability of having a permanent Speaker. I am not quite sure what we mean by "permanent Speaker"; there has been no definition, that 22620-109
House of Commons Procedures I know of, of a permanent Speaker. I also agree with my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat that when we are discussing the Speakership, and possible changes in the tenure and appointment of the Speaker, it would be well to discuss these matters through the usual confidential channels before we discuss them publicly. But the discussion has been initiated, and initiated in terms of personalities, and therefore I think I should say something about it. Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is of vital importance to do what we can to establish the independence of the Speaker in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That, of course, does not depend necessarily at all on the tenure of office of the Speaker. But if we do that, and indeed if we do not, then whatever rules we make to increase the efficiency of the House and the better conduct of public business may not be as successful as we may like them to be; because it is important that the Speaker should not only be independent, but it should be obvious that he is independent and he should be freed from pressures against his independence. I have tried to make that clear whenever I have spoken on this subject. Since we are to strengthen the independence of the Speaker, a very effective way is to make it impossible to appeal his rulings. I cannot think of any better way of strengthening his independence. That has been accepted in other legislative assemblies. It does not do very much to strengthen the independence of the Speaker when his rulings in two years, as they were in 1962 and 1963, were appealed on 23 occasions-and the appeal was upheld on only two occasions.
Surely, however the Speaker may be appointed, however long he may be in the chair, if his rulings are going to be appealed 23 times in two years, his authority is going to be undermined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have the wrong years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe my figures are accurate, Mr. Speaker, and the comparison between those two years and the previous years, which I gave in the House the other day, as reported at page 1482 of Hansard, shows what a change there has been in recent years. From 1957 to 1962, in five years, there were only three appeals against the Speaker's ruling. Surely the authority of the Speaker was respected during those years, partly because of the evidence that his rulings were not appealed; and we all know what an admirable
May 26, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Speaker we had in the chair at that time- fair, objective, independent and strong.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And yet you opposed him in the election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, should not the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) make the same correction that he made the other day. The Prime Minister is talking about 1958 to 1962. In the 1957-58 parliament there were more appeals than the three he has indicated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said the other day, from 1957 to 1962. I was not corrected at that time. If I am wrong, I will be glad to make the correction. It was a five-year period. This is one way to strengthen the independence of the Speaker. Another way of strengthening his independence-and I just throw this out as a suggestion-is to ensure that in some way after he ceases to be Speaker-and if we took steps to see he was Speaker for a longer period of time than is the case at present, this would be even more important-we could, by pension or otherwise, make him financially independent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he should be made financially independent in some way after he has discharged his duty to the House of Commons.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is very important, then, that strengthening the independence of the Speaker is a matter of agreement. It will have to be done by agreement between the parties; I do not think it could be done by any formal act of the House, although I may be wrong in that. But it can be done by agreeing that the Speaker who is appointed will be appointed on the understanding that he will not be opposed by any party in a subsequent election, if he is available to continue as Speaker. That is one way of establishing what we now rather loosely refer to as a permanent Speakership.
I can see a good deal of merit in that, and I said the other day when we were considering this matter that when a Speaker is chosen it should be on the understanding that he would not be opposed at the next election. I can think of the present occupant, a man of fairness and objectivity, as being the kind of person to whom we should like to give that assurance if he were available; and there certainly is no evidence to support the suggestion that he would be available for the next parliament. I can think of the Deputy Speaker as being the kind of man to whom we on this side of the House would be very glad indeed to give that assurance.

If these two Members of the House, who have conducted the affairs of the House with fairness and impartiality, were not available, then I can think of no man worthier or more qualified to be given this assurance that he would not be opposed if he became a Member of Parliament and acted as Speaker than former Mr. Speaker Michener; and I am very glad to put his name forward in this connection as a man we would be very glad to see in the Chair under the conditions I have mentioned, if Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker were not available themselves.
I was very glad to get confirmation of the feeling from the other side of the House in respect of the two Members I have mentioned, and the third, who I think we will all agree was one of the most effective Speakers this House has ever had. I hope we would all agree, if he were back in the Chair and there for an indefinite period, not opposed in an election, it would probably add something to the independence and strength of the Speaker; and as far as the Government and this party is concerned I would be glad to give that assurance right now, and I would invite confirmation on this score from other parts of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the right hon. gentleman allow a question. The other day he stated when at Sudbury that he would be consulting with the present Speaker and yesterday I asked him whether he had as yet consulted with him. Do the words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has just uttered indicate that he has since yesterday consulted with Mr. Speaker and that he has been given to understand that Mr. Speaker would not want to continue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did discuss the matter with the Speaker, as I had indicated I was going to. I had already discussed the matter with him some weeks ago, when he brought to my attention the probability that he would not be running again in the next election but would be withdrawing from the House. He told me that some weeks ago, so when I mentioned the matter to him yesterday I did so not only in the light of our earlier discussion but in the light of the new situation which arose when his name was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as what had been termed a permanent Speaker. It is a little difficult to speak on these matters, but the Speaker will not mind, I am sure, if I tell the House that he felt, in the circumstances as they now exist, his name having been
May 26, 1965	COMMONS
mentioned, that he could not give any expression of opinion as to his own views, his own feelings, his own desires, his own plans, until the House itself, having initiated discussion in this matter, completes that discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, just before the right hon. gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him whether he has given any consideration to the important matter of setting a date when the Estimate Committees will be set up at the beginning of this process we are now contemplating? If this procedure is delayed, then we will know it has been delayed owing to a certain situation; but if they are set up early it would be a different matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important point which I should have dealt with; it was mentioned by my hon. friend from Winnipeg. If the committees are delayed for a matter of days or weeks then, of course, consideration of the estimates will be delayed; and as we are attaching greater importance to the work of the committees in considering estimates, it is important that the committees be set up at once. I hope that we can take steps to see that that is done so that these committees can begin to work as soon as Parliament begins its work.
I do not think it is possible to discuss, as I have been attempting to discuss, the number of days we should set aside in this House for supply questions without relating it to the work done in committees. If the work done in committee is going to be completed in the House over the same number of days which has been customary in the past, then the Members of the committees will have a feeling of frustration and almost impotence regarding the work they are doing and the committees would cease to operate, under this new regime, in the way we believe committees should operate. Therefore it is important, I think, to do everything we can to underline and emphasize the importance of the new committees machinery. One way of doing that would be to get it working right away.


William Arnold Peters: May I also ask the Prime Minister whether consideration will be given, when the committee reports, to discussing in supply, the report of the committee, rather than discussing the individual items? That is the British system in operation; you debate the report of the committee rather than the estimates of the departments.
22620-109|
DEBATES	1693
House of Commons Procedures


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. That is something we certainly ought to consider and perhaps we can discuss that matter among ourselves. I realize the importance of it-that not only the individual estimates but the report itself when it comes back be discussed, giving an opportunity to bring forward some more general questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat has been trying to get the floor for a number of minutes. Is it the desire of the House to grant him a few minutes before the Chair calls it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not be back for a little while and I should like to ask him a question which I think requires only a brief answer. It has to do with the next item on the order paper, item 15, and the Prime Minister might want to give some thought to this. Has he considered the possibility of accepting the recommendation of the procedural committee last year of having these committees appointed for the life of a parliament? This would save a good deal of time in setting up committees each year, would allow the chairmen of the committees to call the committees earlier, and would make much better work to be done by the committees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this does appeal to me and it does to some of my colleagues also. We will certainly look into this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, several minutes ago, in fact well over an hour ago, I was prepared to get up and respond to the suggestion made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in his suggested amendment to the resolution that is now before us, offered on the understanding that the amendment and the subamendment were withdrawn. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to contribute with respect to the amendment, but I did move the subamendment and I am prepared to withdraw it because the wording advanced by the Minister of Transport is almost identically the same as the wording of the subamendment. However, Mr. Speaker, a number of other proposals have been put forward such as the one by the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the number of supply motions to four from six, and also the suggestion-
1694	COMMONS
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is not entitled to take part in the debate at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand some hon. Members have called it five o'clock.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All I wanted to do was to say that perhaps it would be better-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Notices of Motions and Public Bills.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should give consideration to the advisability of helping industry finance the capital works necessary to minimize pollution of water and air caused by industrial wastes; this financial help to take the form of special depreciation allowances on equipment and installations provided for the above purpose.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to induce the Government to provide special depreciation allowances to industries for works they instal to control the problem of water pollution and air pollution. The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) a few weeks ago took that very action with respect to water pollution. The problem of air pollution is to be studied by the Council of Resource Ministers next year and, with the lead taken in this field and the precedent established in the case of water pollution, I am sure that when they have dealt with the problem of air pollution we will probably have recommendations leading to similar action. Because action has already been taken with respect to water pollution and is likely to be taken with respect to air pollution, I would respectfully request unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that the proposals put forward in the budget completely clear the matter, and for that reason I am not going to give unanimous consent without at least having the opportunity to point out

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
where the budget proposals are inadequate in one or two particulars from the point of view of meeting the problem of the pulp and paper industry in Ontario, which is one of the main industries concerned with this particular problem.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, not being a parliamentary expert I am not sure what the rules require. I have asked for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. The hon. Member has indicated he would give consent if he could be allowed to make a few remarks in giving consent, and if it is within the rules of the House I have no objection to that procedure being followed.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the pulp and paper industry to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) was really caused by the strong line that has been taken by the Ontario Water Resources Commission which has set deadlines for the pulp and paper industry and other industries by which time they must have the pollution caused by their operations in check, or punitive measures will be taken. The scale of this can be interpreted either grandly or narrowly. To my knowledge there are some 29 pulp and paper mills in Ontario in 27 different locations, I believe. The scope of the pollution they cause varies tremendously.
As a matter of fact, in the Prime Minister's constituency there is a mill at Espanola which has perhaps the most difficult problem of all. There is a mill at Dryden in the constituency of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson) which is notorious throughout that whole region because of the fact that by its method of disposing of its waste it has in a sense ruined a couple of good fishing rivers and lakes and has been a blot, if you like, upon the whole region. I am talking about specific locations and these are good examples.
In my own riding, where there are four pulp and paper mills and a couple of others so close to my riding they might almost be said to be in it, the problem is different. For example, Marathon on the north shore of Lake Superior has a more serious problem in this regard than Kimberly-Clark at Terrace Bay. I understand that the Ontario Paper Mill at Welland has a particularly difficult problem if it is going to clear up this whole matter.
May 26, 1965

There is another problem involved which has not been straightened out at all and it comes into play when you go beyond the question of the mechanical clearing up of pollution. Who bears the responsibility for the continuing clean-up? I can give an example of this. Suppose at Espanola the pollution is blocked by sewage means, by various pits, pools, screening and so on. What about the consequences that have spread far beyond the actual mill site? Who is responsible for these, and is it possible that some tax concessions or depreciation allowances on the part of the Federal Government should be brought into play?
It is my understanding that the general attitude taken by the Department of Finance is that they will give so much in terms of depreciation allowances, but no more. They will not go so far as to give the kind of allowance that is given in the case of research expenditures. It is my understanding that any company that spends so much money on research gets 150 per cent in terms of a depreciation allowance for that expenditure. In other words, there is built into this kind of expenditure a really large incentive.
The main reason I quarrel with the hon. Member's interpretation of what has been done is that this particular aspect has not been dealt with. It is my understanding, an understanding gathered from personal representations I have made to the Minister, that this has not been met by the Minister of Finance. He and his department have not been prepared to go that far. Yet it is important that it should be considered for this reason. There are no rules you can pull out for any particular pulp and paper mill and say that if they do this it will end pollution. There is no absolute way that a pulp and paper min superintendent can say that they will spend so much and instal so much equipment and this will abolish the pollution. To quite an extent the whole field is still very experimental.
It is quite possible that the mill at Espanola might spend $11- million on various pollution treatments and still not be successful. It might still be under the gun. In other words, there is in prospect the possibility that much of this expenditure might not be effective. We are not absolutely sure just what are the best engineering and technical steps to take in order to clear up pollution.
There is another point involved. You really cannot generalize from one pulp and paper mill to another. After all, a mill located on a body of water the size of Lake Superior
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution has a greater tolerance in what it can release into the adjoining waters than a mill situated on a smaller lake or river such as the mill at Espanola or the Abitibi mill at Sault Ste. Marie.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I am concentrating particularly on the pulp and paper industry, but it seems to me it is the one that is most important in the initial stages in Ontario and other parts of the country as we move toward clearing up pollution. In the pulp and paper industry we are getting, particularly in the boreal forest area in Quebec, Ontario and Northern Manitoba, a development on the logging side that is the most promising thing we have ever had in connection with our streams. I refer to the transition that is happening very rapidly, the disappearing tradition of having your wood moved to the mill by water. As a consequence, we are not going to have the problem of sinkage and of barkage that has been so fatal in many of our streams, particularly in Quebec, with regard to trout fishing. This is one thing that is being cleared up by the transition to mechanical logging and the integration of logging operations to the necessity for the industry cutting down its inventory, and having its inventory tied in much more closely to the daily, weekly or quarterly operation plan.
We are getting an advance on the woods stream side from a point of view of the raw material going into the mill, but in so far as the mill problems are concerned there is no pattern from mill to mill; there is no pattern in terms of location, of the amount of pollution that the area or the waters can absorb. It is impossible to be absolute about what expenditures will achieve in the way of blocking off pollution. I want to see the ukase of the Ontario Water Resources Commission respected. I want to see it achieve its objective. I am very much aware also of the fact that we have an industry that is healthy, but there is a certain delicacy in the balance, particularly with some mills that might be called marginal. All of us who have industries relating to pulp and paper, as I know you have, Mr. Speaker, are aware of some of the problems that are involved, particularly because of the price of newsprint and other paper products for producers on the West Coast. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are several mills and locations, communities, in Ontario and one or two in Quebec in which the future, in terms of expansion or continuation, because of rap-
May 26, 1965

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution idly rising wage costs and other factors, is not really so good.
It is possible if that kind of mill, that kind of operation, is presented with extremely large anti-pollution expenses, that could tip the scales toward pulling the whole operation down or cancelling it out. It is for that reason I think the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), should go further and offer this special kind of depreciation so that the expenditures are classed as experimental research, at least in part. I think this would be a move of great encouragement to the pulp and paper industry. I just could not allow this particular motion to go through from the point of view that the whole thing has been solved by what has been given in the budget.
I was not aware we were proceeding with this motion. I was informed we were going to proceed with the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), so I could not get my material over here. However, I hope the House will accept my word that I have material from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association; I have material from Kimberly-Clark, from several of the Abitibi mills and from a couple of other pulp and paper companies, which indicate that, delighted as they are with the move that was made in the Budget announcement, they still feel that this other aspect should have been considered. So far as they are concerned, they are still open to it, they are still making representations. Certainly I, as one of the Members from a region affected by this problem, consider it is still open. It was for this reason I felt I should make these remarks.
There is one last point I wanted to touch upon before I sit down. There are many Members here, certainly some of them in the House, from areas in which pulp and paper is not a major industrial factor. They may be saying, is this not some kind of special consideration for particular industry in a particular location? Is this not going against the grain with relation to what tax incentives should try to do, that is have a general rather than a specific effect? I can grant the merit of that argument. I know I have always felt when I have been sitting here listening to special pleas for special interests that do not relate to my own part of the country, that this may be wrong. Sometimes when these special pleas are made, as they have been in the past, for such things as acreage payments, you sometimes feel one particular part of the country is getting an advantage

through perhaps stronger lobbying or more political pressure whatever the case may be. In this particular case the hon. Member who sponsored the motion recognizes that we are dealing with a conception that is an ideal; we have an ideal of clean air and good pure water in this country. It is an ideal that we, in our hurry and the haphazard way we have gone about developing things in the past generation, have tended to destroy. Remedial measures are very much necessary, but I do not feel you can lay responsibility on any specific industry or any specific location. It seems to me that all of us and our forefathers bear a responsibility for the way pollution has come into being in so many parts of the country.
It is because the Ontario Water Resources Commission, in a sense, has isolated the problem and has come up, through the powers given to it by the Provincial Government, with the ability to dictate and direct remedial measures that this kind of resolution has been brought forward. It is not just pollution from pulp and paper mills. You get pollution from so many different kinds of organizations and from municipalities themselves. It seems to me that the Department of Finance and those agencies in the Government that are interested in research-I think particularly of the National Research Council, the Water Resources Branch in the Northern Affairs Department, the Department of National Health and Welfare and its whole attitude toward air pollution and its merging and mixing with the problem of air pollution- should come up with a policy.
I think hon. Members know that the resource ministers are preparing to deal with this, not in a policy way but in a fact-finding way. We are having symposiums this year and next year, and there is going to be a very large conference in October, 1966, that will touch on this problem. With this kind of situation ahead of us, we need some policy interests; we need the continuing support of people like the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) and the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who also has views in this regard. We need them to keep prodding the Government inside and externally, too, to come up with something more imaginative than we have. I suggest that the hon. Member's motion should be voted upon and approved by this House. I am somewhat disappointed that he would feel, although perhaps it is natural in a way that a Government Member likes to glory in the things a Govern-
May 26, 1365

ment does, that what has been done is something very worth while. It is; but much more needs to be done.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
Member has already spoken and taken part in the debate.


David George Hahn: If I could just ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker. I originally proposed that the motion be withdrawn, and agreed that the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) might say a few words before it was withdrawn. However, he has raised some questions which I feel warrant an answer. Had I known he was going into the subject in the depth he did, I would have spoken more than I did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. Member took a chance, and it did not work out the way he thought it would.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the withdrawal of the notice of motion as suggested by the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), but I am afraid I cannot overlook the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to the ranks of those of us who defend private enterprise, he having argued that taxpayers should aid the private enterprise operators in the pulp and paper industry to eliminate the pollution of air and water. I had not intended to speak on the motion this afternoon, but when I found the subject was being opened up, despite the hon. Member for Broadview's desire to withdraw it, I decided I would like to make references to a point or two.
The air and water of this country belong to the people of the nation, and not to private individuals or private companies. They belong to the people as a whole. It strikes me as peculiar that we should be thinking of asking the taxpayers of Canada to help finance the correction of polluting agents that industry is using in the manufacture of its products.
In the Province of Ontario, particularly in the major municipalities, we have continuous inspections going on all the time against air pollution caused by too much smoke. This applies not only to industry but to railway steam engines and other engines putting out a lot of smoke into the air. Does this motion mean that the taxpayers should be expected to finance the conversion of industry in the control of a smoke nuisance which, after all,
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution is pollution of the air? Why should not these industries be expected to govern their actions in some manner so that they are not polluting the heritage of the people of pure water and air? There are laws against what industries can dump on the streets, in order to keep the streets clean. Why should the taxpayers of the country be expected to aid in clearing up the pollution that private industry is creating?
The fact that many of these mills are in unorganized territories have given them all almost a carte blanche in their own minds to pollute the water and the air of those territories. I am thinking of some pulp and paper companies in Northern Ontario in the midst of woods on the sides of swift flowing streams, in unorganized municipalities, and they are of the opinion that no law of God or man applies to them. Some of them are trying to work seven days a week, and that is why I say they think the laws of God should not apply to them.
I believe the Government-and when I say Government I mean federal, provincial and municipal-should demand that private industry conduct its operations in such a way that they do not pollute the heritage of the people, pure air and pure water. I am not in 100 per cent agreement with the idea of taxpayers giving money to help a poor, hard-driven industry to correct the situation it is creating.
The hon. Member for Port Arthur has referred to the plant at Espanola. I taught school in 1922 in the town of Massey, Ontario, where the Sauble joins the Spanish River. I am familiar with the Spanish River back 150 miles from its mouth, and I know it was polluted originally by lumber mills letting dead head logs flow down it, and throwing bark into the stream.
The same thing has been done in the past to the Ottawa River by the great lumber barons of this area. This discussion does not apply just to pulp and paper mills. Lumber mills were allowed to pollute the water in the first place, and I do not believe that the taxpayers should be asked or expected to help finance the correction of an original mistake made by the manufacturers themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the debate continues perhaps I may say I might have asked the House a moment ago if there was unanimous agreement to the suggestion that the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) might take part in the debate now.
May 26, 1965

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution If there is unanimous agreement, of course the House is master of its own rules. Otherwise the hon. Member must be ruled as having already spoken and taken part in the debate. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have got to leave. I will only be five minutes, if the hon. Member will allow me to exercise the prerogatives of the House to participate at this time.


Mr. Walker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it agreed that when the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) resumes his seat the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) has the consent of the House to speak?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This notice of motion, Mr. Speaker, asks for some form of favourable discrimination in tax laws. I would agree with the hon. Member that perhaps tax incentives might be given toward research on the control of air and water pollution, but I find it rather difficult to assume that any industry which is creating a form of pollution nuisance, whether in the air or in the water, should receive special consideration so that it may instal pollution removing equipment.
We have laws that a new plant must be installed with the most modern techniques. I know of many cement plants that have to have dust suppressors, and these are very costly. Many municipal power plants must instal cinder suppressors, and these too are costly. All this is part of the cost of doing business, and if the cost of removing the effluent from any industrial process is too costly, then it is an uneconomic process.
It is the same as if you were going after buffalo hearts and you killed all the buffalos to have the hearts and then threw away the carcasses. Bringing it up to modern times, it is the same as if you were going after beef liver and you killed all the cattle to get the liver, and then threw the carcasses away. As a matter of fact our laws today insist that older established industries bring themselves up to date. They are given a period in which to do so, and I believe this is fair.
When we talk about air pollution let us not load it all on the back of industry. In cities like Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal where the majority of winter heating is by oil, as com-

pared with coal in the past, the degree of air pollution from that source may be somewhat less. But in our more salubrious western cities, such as Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta, their heating is supplied almost exclusively by natural gas-


Mr. Smiih:: From Ottawa?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would have thought the hon. Member for Simcoe East (Mr. Smith) would know the gas that emanates from this place is not natural. I think you will find that those communities that are heated primarily with natural gas have a cleaner atmosphere and do not have the same problem of air pollution that exists in Eastern Canada.
A great deal of air pollution is created by the use of the automobile in summer and winter. One has only to live in close proximity to a major highway, for example in Toronto close to 401, and get to the windward side of it, to see what I mean. Back of the automobile industry there is the refining industry, and in this context I mention Edmonton, where we have large tank farms for both pipe lines, east and west, as well as large capacity refineries. Get down to windward of them and the fumes of hydrogen sulphide which come from the sour oil will almost knock you over. It is highly unpleasant to live in those areas downwind from these refinery sites. Anyone who has lived in close proximity to a large packing plant will also know whereof I speak.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
However, I suggest to the hon. Member that it is wrong to introduce further taxation discriminations for the purpose of removing, or installing machinery to remove effluent, whether in the air or elsewhere. In keeping with the rest of the program of encouraging research, both by the previous administration and by this administration, I think the expenditures devoted to research in this regard ought to be deemed to be a special type of expenditure worthy of a special type of income tax treatment.
The hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has said we have laws for the protection of the public as a whole. Those laws are known to the business community and to individuals, and if they wish to engage in business they should conform to those laws for the great good of the nation. I am in disagreement with the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in his statement that this resolution should receive favourable support.
May 26, 1965


Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in my capacity as the Member for Coast-Capilano as we also have a pollution problem on the west coast.
The hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said that the Government should show some imagination in respect of pollution control. It has shown some imagination, I believe, in respect of the control of pollution of the nation's waters. I should like to see that same imagination applied to the control of pollution of our air as well. In other words, I should like to see the two-year fast tax write-off which, according to the current budget, applies to water pollution, extended to air pollution as well.
I understand the Government does not as yet have a complete picture of the total cost to the federal treasury of such a measure, namely a measure to control air pollution or assist in controlling air pollution by a fast tax write-off, but I hope that as soon as this information is available it will move in this direction, presumably through the medium of the budget.
Pulp mills have been mentioned as major offenders in respect of water pollution. Pulp mills and chemical plants are also major offenders in respect of air pollution. The Federal Government has limited authority regarding the matter of pollution. This is a matter largely for provincial control. Obviously, however, through the fiscal measures open to the Federal Government, it can encourage projects which would help to clear up our air, as well as our water.
I should also like to see encouragement through research grants, and in this respect I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Research should be aimed at improved methods-cheaper plant and equipment in other words-for cleaning up the nation's air as well as our rivers and streams. The pulp and paper industry is having a difficult time, as it happens, regarding odours emanating from kraft pulp mills. It is very difficult to remove the last vestiges of odour from the air, particularly from the effluent from kraft pulp mills. A great deal of research has already been carried out in various parts of the world in this respect, but equipment which can remove all of the odour from the effluent is immensely expensive. Therefore I think a second prong to this attack, and an even more effective approach to it, would be assistance in the form of grants in respect of research.
I hope that the pulp and paper industry, through its trade associations and research
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution institutes, will combine in tackling this problem. It certainly would be encouraged to do so through Government assistance to the industry, with the grants administered perhaps by the Department of Industry, specifically directed toward the removal of pollutants in the air.
I would not want to wait until the Resource Ministers conference, and I believe this would require more than one, to tender their final recommendations in this connection before attempting to do something. I am sure the Resource Ministers will bring a great deal of information to bear on this subject, but as usual, they will tend to collect facts, prepare data sheets, giving us a host of technical information while at the same time continuing to pose the policy question: What is to be done about this very difficult problem.
Certainly I should like to see the Federal Government make a move in respect of air pollution through a fast tax write-off as has been done in respect of water pollution. I should also like to see it devote more funds to air pollution control through co-operative arrangements with the Pulp and Paper Research Association in an effort to find a solution to this problem of air pollution.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it was very nice to hear the left wing views of the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) during this debate. As I understood him, he was against any help whatsoever to private industry.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: From the taxpayer.


John James Greene: It was also nice to hear the right wing views of the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who was in support of even more help for private industry. If there is one thing that this private Members' hour indicates, it is that this is surely the one place where we obtain the true views of Members, unhampered by party ties and affiliations. This is surely a salutary thing in our parliamentary process.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Do not rate them all left up your way; just backward.


John James Greene: I was particularly pleased to hear the views of the hon. Member for York-Humber, because there was a time during an earlier debate when he was accused of being too far to the right to belong to the party which he supports. Now having gone way to the left on this measure we can see that he is in his proper home, which is a happy medium between the two. I know we are all very pleased here to have him back with us,
1700	COMMONS
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution where we are so fond of him and where he so rightly and justly belongs.
In regard to the suggestion that anti-pollution is the responsibility of private industry, I do not think we can entirely accept that for two reasons. First, all of the pollution is not caused by private institutions. I have had the pleasure of taking an evening stroll along lovers' walk at the back of the Parliament Buildings-by myself, mind you, Mr. Speaker. It is quite shocking to see the main chimney of the Government heating plant at the back of the Supreme Court Building belching out black smoke over the Government buildings across Ottawa. The reason behind this is related in some way to some requirement, unknown to me, that the Government heating establishment must use Nova Scotia coal, which is apparently very black and has a tendency to belch smoke over Government buildings.
Perhaps I should point out also that such institutions as hospitals are sometimes guilty of pouring smoke over city and town buildings. It is quite possible that it is economically impractical for institutions such as hospitals to use only natural gas, which the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) assures us is perfectly clean. I do say, however, that certain pollution does not emanate from private industry, and I do not think it is the sole responsibility of the private aspects of our economy to remove all pollution. I might also point out that this is one case where there would have to be a retroactive effect of the legislation, with which I do not think most Members would agree. Some of these elements of pollution were brought into the economy by private industry at a time when they were perfectly within their legal rights to use the kind of equipment which caused the pollution. I do not think it would be equitable to subsequently force them into another way of production, when it was legal at the time they instituted this manner of production.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do believe there is a very proper area for public interference in this question of anti-pollution. I might point out that the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) criticized the Federal Government for not doing enough in this area, as I understood it. But at least we have taken a positive and very important step in this direction by giving encouragement to private industry, by way of tax incentives, to remedy the situation as it now exists. I might point out also, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of those

DEBATES	May 26, 1965
grey areas in our constitution which for so many years has been bedevilled by the fact that in a very difficult and costly procedure such as this, as between federal and provincial authorities there has been a tendency to say, "Well, it is the other fellow's responsibility". I think it is one of the things that disturbs all of us who are Members of this House, that we do not seem to tackle these very great, essential and permanent problems in our body politic and our economy. They are put by the wayside, when it is obviously the most important thing in Canada today, surely, to use what is left of our natural resources better than we have in the past. The question of water, the question of pollution and the question of the use of our natural resources are areas which must be covered by both federal and provincial legislation if we are going to achieve in these areas a better way of life in the future than we have in the past.
In the Province of Ontario, while they wield the big stick through the Water Resources Commission, to which our friend from Port Arthur has referred, they do very little about providing any of the finances or any of the incentives that the Federal Government has tried to do here. Apparently the tendency of the Water Resources Commission in Ontario is to force municipalities, the home owners of this Province, to bear the responsibility for sewage disposal plants and instruments such as this, and to improve the pollution situation. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is one body of people for whom it is inequitable to bear the cost, it is the home owners.
I suggest this is one area that should be solved at the higher levels of government through a broad basis of taxation such as the provincial and federal governments have. It is to be hoped that the Conference of Resource Ministers will soon attack this problem boldly, forthrightly and pervasively, on a Federal-Provincial basis, through cooperative federalism, so that we can pass on to those who come after us pure air and pure water, which was our bequest from the past.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. Member a question. I know he would not want to be unfair to the Provincial Government. Prior to this legislation, did they not put in a rule that they would allow the pulp and paper companies some five years to clear up their properties?


John James Greene: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this is correct. But my main
May 26. 1965	COMMONS
quarrel with the Provincial Government in this area is in forcing the cost of anti-pollution on the municipalities, where it must be borne to a large extent by the home owners of this Province in their real property taxes, rather than assuming the cost of it themselves at the provincial level, as we are to some extent doing here by giving tax incentives,
I do not think the problem of water pollution should be paid for by the home owners in their realty taxes.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. Member is in such good humour I wonder whether I could ask him if a national water resources policy would not cover this situation better than the little dibs and dabs that they are doing here. Does the hon. Member not agree that there must be an over-all controlling of this problem?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I quite concur in the hon. Member's views in this regard; I think we very badly need a national water resources policy. That can only be achieved through co-operative federalism; and I certainly hope we will move rapidly and boldly in this direction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I heard some reference to right and left wings. I want to say a word or two on this resolution as one of those left wing Socialists. I support the spirit and purpose of the resolution and what it intends to do. At the same time I have had come before me balance sheets which I have examined in recent weeks, and in them there is one company which reported $25 million profit; another $35 million, and another $30 million. I must say that I fully appreciate that these people simply cannot afford this sort of thing; it is beyond their capacity to pay for many of the things that are required. I can well understand that, and we have some sympathy for them in their present position.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am one who has always been interested in the question of pollution and I believe in the necessity for a national water resources policy which covers all phases of water resources, their anti-pollution, their development, and so on. I am so enamoured of that aspect of this question that I would be willing to permit the companies in question certain write-offs for research. When I say that, I am not suggesting that where you have half a dozen mills belonging to one company, each mill should qualify for a write-off on the research required. I think the research can be confined to certain problems related to certain companies, whether
DEBATES	1701
Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution it be a pulp and paper company, a smelter, or any other company. But because there is a necessity for early action in regard to this problem, even as a Socialist I would vote for companies being given a write-off from income tax for any money expended on research in connection with this problem.
On the surface one might say that the profits of these people are large enough that they should pay for these things, but I think we have to indicate that we are so concerned about the problem that we are willing to consider their being allowed this write-off, as we are in connection with other types of research. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Government has taken a small step in that direction.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I thank the House for their courtesy in allowing me to speak again. I think we are sort of having a debate in reverse on this particular topic. Having started off by asking to have it withdrawn, having then entered into a debate, I wind up in the rather unique position of a Member single-handedly and with malice aforethought apparently talking out his own bill. But be that as it may.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I listened with interest to the comments made on the motion and probably it might have been helpful, had I known that this would develop into a debate, for me to put on the record an explanation why I put the motion as I did. I think that while much of what has been said I would agree with, many people have missed the purpose I was trying to achieve with this particular motion.
Let us look at the problems we really face. The thing I am concerned about is the critical, pressing problem we have in certain parts of the country with pollution of our water resources. I consider the problem serious enough to say that action is required not two, three or four years from now, but right now. I think steps have to be taken and taken quickly.
Bearing that in mind, where does the responsibility lie? Water is a provincial resource and therefore the legislative responsibility generally rests with the provinces. It is up to the provinces to enact the legislation which is necessary to clean up the situation. Where does this pollution come from? It comes from two major sources. It comes from industry and it comes from municipalities: industry in terms of its waste products; municipalities in terms of the sewage they discharge.
May 26. 1965

Financial Aid to Minimize Pollution
With that background, with the tact that this is a provincial matter, with the fact that urgent action has to be taken, with the fact that it can only come from two sources- with these facts in mind it seemed to me important that we get these two sources stopped right away from further polluting our waters. In other words, we must stop industry from dumping pollutants into the streams and stop municipalities from doing that as well. Only the provinces can enact the legislation to bring this about; but in the Province of Ontario there is very good legislation, legislation which is being enforced. I think this is a tribute to the Provincial Government, even though it happens to be that of a party I do not support. It is a good piece of legislation and a good program.
But industry which has been allowed to go on for a number of years using or wasting our resources, and has never been called to account for this, cannot suddenly find the money necessary to make the expenditure required to clear this problem up. We have allowed industry to go on in this way. We have allowed it to play by a certain set of rules and we have now started to change the rules and enforce that change of rules. I felt that if industry was to meet these new rules, industry needed help, and the best help I could think of was a form of tax concessions on special plant and equipment it would need to put in to do the job. This is exactly one of the measures contained in the Budget. I am very glad to see it is contained in the Budget because I think it will now enable industry to live up to the legislation the provinces must pass quickly, before it is too late in critical areas of the country, in order to stop additional pollutants going into our waters.
The hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggested that this was not enough, and I could not agree more with the hon. Member. I think I have made two speeches in the last few months in the House on pollution, and to me it is obvious that this in itself is not the sole answer to the problem. To me this is the shock treatment necessary for the immediate, critical areas of the country so that they can solve the problem facing them. Beyond that there is much which has to be done.
We have the secondary problem of sewage coming in from municipalities. The provinces must get after the municipalities and must insist that the municipalities put in the proper sewage treatment plants, so that they do not dump pollutants into the waters. If the provinces will do this, and if the provinces

or the municipalities need financial help from the Federal Government in terms of loans, then it is up to the provinces and the municipalities to come to the Federal Government and request such assistance. There is already on the statute books assistance for sewage treatment plants under the National Housing Act. It also seems to me that the provisions of the Municipal Development and Loan Act did provide low interest loans to municipalities so that they could have the funds necessary to go after their end of the problem. I think these two steps in themselves, however, are still not the complete answer.
The problem of research was raised. A good deal of research must be done. Research must be done by industry so that industry knows what type of plant is the most efficient to treat its effluents so that it can find the best method of stopping pollution through its waste products. Over and above that, research is required by Government agencies- the sort of research being carried on in a very limited way, unfortunately much too limited, by the Great Lakes Institute. They are doing research, but should be doing much more research, as should other agencies, to determine how much pollutant a given body of water can take, what are the flow characteristics, the currents and so on, how much you can dump into bodies of water without destroying them. We have only scratched the surface in this area; much work remains to be done here.
The hon. Member for Port Arthur mentioned the problem of residual effects. Take, for example, a stream which has been polluted for years and years and years. If you stop industry or a municipality from dumping further pollutants into the stream, there still remains a good deal of damage which has been done over the years. Who has to come back and repair that damage? We do not know the answer to that question. I would be happy if this were the only problem we had to solve, namely how to clean up streams which were once polluted but are no longer. I would be delighted if that were the only question which we faced. Some day we will have to face this very question.
As I see it, this is really a matter of provincial concern, but it may not be. At the present time we do not know the answer to that question.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


David George Hahn: Certainly.
May 26, 1965


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether the remarks he is now making, relevant largely to rivers and streams, would be applied by him equally to the pollution of ocean waters, particularly in the harbours and bays? I am thinking mainly of plants located by salt water, either on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the problem of salt water pollution, but I would assume-and this is only an assumption-that the same principles would apply. There is a type of pollution in salt waters, and indeed in our inland waters, which is caused by ships dumping oil. This is another source of pollution. The Shipping Act contains provisions against this. I hope that in conjunction with the United States we will tighten up and toughen these laws, particularly as far as the Great Lakes area is concerned. However, the point I am trying to make is this. My motion calls for a certain specific action which I felt was needed to deal with the critical and immediate problem of water pollution in those areas of the country where it is most severe, including among others, the Great Lakes.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. Member permit a question; he has only 30 seconds left. Does he intend to talk this out or is he going to stop now so we can have a vote? His resolution is important.
Business of the House


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the beginning of my remarks what I was going to do. I would ask to withdraw this motion because the action asked for has largely been carried out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour
appointed for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock, namely our discussion of the resolutions on the order paper relating to improvements in the procedures of this House. Should that discussion be concluded tomorrow we will then take up item No. 3 on today's order paper, which is resuming the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading of Bill No. C-102, an act respecting banks and banking.


Michael Starr: May I just ask the Acting Government House Leader whether the Government had given any thought to Friday, and is he in a position to tell us what the Government expects to bring up on Friday?


John Watson MacNaught: If the discussion on the resolutions relating to procedures has not finished, then I presume we will go on with it on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 27, 1965