1965-03-31

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Moreau.
Thirteenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Gendron.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I should like to inform the house that arrangements have now been completed for the transfer of the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission to the Department of Labour as of April 1.
The decision to effect this transfer was taken by the government following a recommendation of the Gill committee which inquired into the operations carried on under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The broad lines of the division of the existing staff of the unemployment insurance commission have been determined partly on the basis of those positions which were concerned mainly or exclusively with insurance matters on the one hand and with employment matters on the other, and partly on a fair and reasonable distribution of the remaining positions which are concerned with joint services affecting both insurance and unemployment activities.
On the basis of this distribution some 4,156 positions are being transferred as of April 1 to the Department of Labour, and 5,859 positions will remain with the unemployment insurance commission. Assurance has been given to all those who are remaining in the unemployment insurance commission as well as those joining the Department of Labour that the transfer will not adversely affect them. It has been agreed with the civil service commission that competitions for positions in either the unemployment insurance commission or in the Department of Labour will be open to the personnel of both during the next live years.
20220-822J
It will be appreciated that the transfer has been by no means an easy one to bring about, and I want to express my appreciation for the co-operation of all concerned.
In addition to reaching decisions about a reasonable distribution of staff, decisions have had to be made with respect to a fair allocation of equipment and other facilities and space. It will not be possible nor practical to implement all these decisions with respect to office accommodation and equipment on April 1. It will take some time before all of them can be implemented, but in the meantime the basic objectives have been determined.
Another important matter that has been examined carefully is the continuing close liaison needed between the operations of the national employment service and the unemployment insurance commission. A number of transitional steps have been taken to assist in the transfer and to ensure continuity of service to the public in both employment service and insurance operations. The director of the national employment service in the unemployment insurance commission will become the national director of the national employment service in the Department of Labour. The regional offices of the national employment service, each one of which will have its own regional director, will report directly to the national director.
Additional positions will be required to strengthen the staff of the national employment service at head office and, where they are immediately needed, elsewhere. We expect to be in a position to place our requirements before the treasury board in the very near future. The classification of employment officer positions is also under active review with the civil service commission.
We intend to have a thorough study made, with the help of independent advisers, of the reorganization of the national employment service to ensure that it will become the key operational agency in the manpower field. This independent and objective analysis will also include an assessment of the other manpower activities in the Department of Labour, and of the most effective ways and means of achieving a fully co-ordinated, over-all manpower program in Canada. These steps will be taken immediately.

National Employment Service
I have stressed the need for an aggressive and positive manpower policy ever since I became Minister of Labour. I have also welcomed the strong emphasis which the economic council of Canada has placed on manpower as a major part of economic policy, and I fully agree with the stress they have placed on the need for close co-ordination of all programs and policies in this field.
We have made significant progress in developing an over-all Canadian manpower policy, and have already achieved a substantial amount of co-ordination. The transfer of the national employment service to the Department of Labour on April 1 will mean that most essential elements of manpower policy at the federal level will be under the Minister of Labour.
This transfer and the other steps I have announced today will make a further contribution toward realization of an active and fully co-ordinated manpower policy, a major element in our country's total economic and social development.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the announcement just made by the Minister of Labour will be brief.
One of the recommendations the Gill commission made to the government was that the national employment service of the unemployment insurance commission be transferred to the Department of Labour. When considering the minister's announcement in respect of this recommendation we must at the same time wonder why the government has not taken action on the other recommendations which the Gill commission made to the government. The one the subject of this announcement is only one of a great many that should be considered. As a matter of fact the government have not even told the house or the people of the country what they intend to do about the balance of these recommendations, and it is very important to the people of the country that the government make an announcement soon as to their intentions with respect to them.
I think the government should advise us as to what role the national employment service will play in the Department of Labour. As the minister has pointed out, this will be a very important part of the work of the Department of Labour so far as manpower policy is concerned. In view of this fact, what position will the head of the national employment service hold in the administrative set-up of the Department of Labour? I think he should be at least an assistant deputy minister in the department
[Mr. MacEachen.)
so this division of the department will have some prestige and will be recognized as a very essential and potent aspect of the department.
With regard to the matter of liaison between the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service, I think that should be carried out because the two have a great deal to do with one another, however, the national employment service should be foremost rather than the unemployment insurance commission. This is something I stressed when I was minister of labour, and at that time I think we were coming out of the shell and giving more emphasis to the employment service rather than to the unemployment insurance commission.
The minister always brings up in the house the work that has been done, particularly in the Department of Labour, with regard to the manpower policy of the government. Yet nothing has been clearly stated as to the achievements. Even today the Minister of Labour said there has been co-ordination across the country as a result of the establishment of the manpower committee, but he leaves us in the dark as to the results of this co-ordination. I hope that in the very near future the Minister of Labour will be more frank with us and tell us specifically what co-ordination has been brought about with respect to manpower policy by the manpower committee that has been set up in his department.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing one might say about the minister's statement is that it is much better than we expected on the basis of similar statements he has been making in reply to questions in recent months. The economic council has been very critical of the government's manpower policies, in that to meet the requirements of our rapidly changing economy the employment service must have the means to promote the mobility of Canada's labour force. In its recent presentation to the government the Canadian Labour Congress suggested that the national employment service should really become Canada's national manpower service. It also suggested that if the manpower service is going to do the job it has to have the ability to collect labour market information on a nation-wide and continuous basis, accompanied by professional analysis and detailed forecasting of labour market trends.

Despite this kind of thinking and proposals of this nature, the minister has continued until today to suggest that while he intended to announce that the national employment service would come under the jurisdiction of his department, the Department of Labour would continue as it has up to now and that the manpower consultative service would continue as in the past. The result would be to continue the kind of fragmented set-up we have had and which every other agency, except the minister and his department, had predicted would lead to disaster.
So it was good to hear the minister say the department is going to have a very careful look at the co-ordination and co-operation of these various services. I wish the minister could have had this done before he made his announcement today, and I think he could have if he had acted much more forthrightly.
There is one more thing that in my opinion needs to be kept in mind. If the national employment service is going to do the job we expect it to do, it will have to have the kind of staff it has not had up to now.
I saw an announcement recently that they had provision for only one economist in their complement, and that position is vacant at the present time. Certainly if they are going to do the job which is required they are going to have to have the technical and professional staff which will give them the information required in order to direct people to jobs and find jobs for people. I hope the minister's statement today will be followed by some real action in the next few months.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the long statement of the Minister of Labour, which we did not have the opportunity to consider beforehand, of course, I should like to make a few brief comments, rather critical but objective, however, in this connection.
It seems that this decision stems from the Gill and Glassco reports. Both reports had recommended changes in the administration of the Department of Labour and in the field of unemployment insurance and employment.
It is certainly an excellent decision made by the minister to separate definitely the employment section from the unemployment insurance, as such, and to integrate it into the Department of Labour.
What concrete results can we expect? Naturally, that is a bit difficult to determine at this time.
National Employment Service
Considering the recommendations in the report submitted by the economic council of Canada before Christmas, and faced with the possible recession forecast for next year, I think it is a good thing that the government take steps to train the workers for the new jobs that could be made available to them.
However, there is one point especially to which I should like to draw the minister's attention, as regards this particular training program for workers. The program was controlled by the unemployment insurance commission, which was responsible for paying certain allowances to workers so they might register at technical schools and be trained to take other jobs in other economic fields.
The minister will be able to entrust that new branch of his department which will look after employment with the specific task of setting up an adequate program which would be flexible enough to apply to all areas.
For my part, I have received representations from the authorities of my region to the effect that the formula tried out last year for the retraining of workers did not meet the requirements of our area.
I appreciate the difficulty of finding a formula applicable everywhere. However, I feel that is the objective the minister and his department should strive to reach because that is one of the best solutions to the problem of retraining workers. In this era of automation we must all anticipate that workers will have to be retrained in order to be able to take jobs in other fields of endeavour or other trades.
There is also another aspect which should be changed, and that is the formula under which the number of unemployed is arrived at. Every month the minister informs the house of the number of unemployed according to the figures published by the bureau of statistics. I have always wondered why he did not use the reports submitted to him by all local unemployment insurance offices to determine the actual number of unemployed. Instead, a sampling formula is used which I think does not reflect the facts as they are. I think the minister should have more confidence in the monthly reports submitted to him by the managers of some 260 unemployment insurance offices throughout Canada.
That is all I wanted to say and I hope that the minister will consider the possibility of using those reports to establish exactly the number of unemployed in the various areas of the country.

National Employment Service


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attentiveness to the declaration of the Minister of Labour and, as the hon. member for Lake St. John said, it is a pretty long statement that covers a lot of territory.
I would have liked to see it in written form so that hon. members could give better consideration to it by way of criticism or approval. As the minister stated, and as was reiterated by the hon. member for Ontario, this declaration is based on one of the recommendations in the Gill report. Many questions have been asked of the minister about an opportunity to study the Gill report thoroughly. As I say, this deals with one of the recommendations in that report, but what about the rest of the recommendations? When will they be put into effect? There may be some good in this, in fact there must be, but we have to watch the catches in each corner.
Yesterday I asked the minister a question about this business of closing down small offices and transferring their functions to central offices. Where a number of these employment offices have been closed down across the country it has caused greater expense to the unemployed. Their closing might provide better organization for the bureaucratic system we have, but there will be less benefits at the bottom, at least to a certain extent.
I am wondering if this is not just a hitch between the federal government and the provincial governments, because the latter are opening unemployment offices. With the transfer of manpower and labour force responsibilities to the Department of Labour, leaving unemployment to be dealt with by a separate office, I ask what co-ordination is there between the provinces and the federal Department of Labour? Is this giving them permission to provide a little more local patronage? That is why I want to see to the bottom of this thing.
I know that in the province of Quebec a lot of these little establishments are popping up. As the federal government closes down its offices, provincial establishments are popping up and I would like to get some explanation for that. I shall not stress the matter at the moment as I shall have more time to deal with it during discussion of the supply motion, and possibly some explanations can be given when we enter the throne speech debate. In the meantime this is still a question into which we must look.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1
On the other hand, if by this transfer of manpower to the Department of Labour, and if through some of the programs which have been put into effect during the past year or two the country or the unemployed are helped, then I would ask the minister to guard against one thing, namely not to be too bureaucratic about it but rather to be a little bit practical and humanitarian. At present there is a tendency to switch the unemployed and their families from one end of the country to another, like cattle going to the stock market. It might be a good thing to re-establish an unemployed person in an area where he can get work, but we should not be inhuman about it. I know the minister will himself be human, but there are some bureaucrats who cannot be called that. The policy involved will have to be clear, with recommendations and regulations carefully laid down so that bureaucrats will not get strange ideas, wishing to make extra work for themselves, and thus put their feet in a trap. I would ask the minister to ensure that the law with respect to this declaration is made clear, so this new policy will not in effect mean one door in and four doors out, and so that when it goes into effect it will benefit the people concerned.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Coales: 1.	How many projects have been approved by ARDA within the province of Nova Scotia, and of the total, how many were approved in 1964?
2.	What has been the total outlay for the projects in question; what has been the federal contribution, and the provincial contribution toward these projects?
3.	What is the total number of projects now before ARDA awaiting approval within the province of Nova Scotia?
4.	How many projects have been initiated in Nova Scotia under ARDA that do not involve provincial financial participation?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Fifty three projects of which 31 were approved in 1964.
2.	The total shareable cost covering the 53 approved projects amounts to $1,270,000 of which the federal contribution is $700,000. The provincial government contribution would therefore be $570,000.
3.	Three projects.
4.	Ten projects at the request of Nova Scotia in the research region in the province.


WORK IN HUDSON BAY BY MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Is research work or are surveys planned for this summer in Hudson bay for the following branches of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys (a) dominion observatories branch
(b)	geological division (c) stellar physics branch (d) other branches of the department?
2.	If so (a) how extensive will this research work or surveys be (b) how long will they last
(c)	what personnel will be involved in each project?
3.	Could such research be made more effective by the establishment of a permanent research base at Churchill utilizing vacated government installations?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Oceanographic, hydrographic, submarine geological and geophysical investigations are being planned for this summer in Hudson bay on a joint project involving marine sciences branch; geological survey branch; observatories branch.
2.	(a) Surveys will cover the whole bay in reconnaissance, (b) The whole project will take three months, July, August and September. (c) The new oceanographic vessel Hudson and one charter vessel will carry the majority of personnel from each of the above branches. Parties occupying shore stations for Decca navigation and seismological observations will be set out by aircraft. Approximately 105 personnel consisting of permanent staff, seasonal student employees and private company contract personnel will be involved on the whole project. It would be nearly impossible to break the whole operation down into sub-projects by personnel.
3.	Since this is largely a shipborne operation, the government installations at Churchill would be of little use. Accommodation is being requested for the crew of one aircraft for the months of July and August.
This is a one summer operation and at the end of the season all personnel will return to their own laboratories to work out the results. In order to work out their results they need the electronic computers, drafting and consulting facilities of their own laboratories.
It would, therefore, in no way be practicable to carry out the work by establishing a permanent research base at Churchill.


NEW DESTROYERS FOR NAVY
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What is the approximate date, or dates, in 1966 when construction will commence on four new destroyers for the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	Will these destroyers be equipped with the American mark 46 torpedo?
Questions
3.	What are the characteristics of this torpedo which are an improvement over torpedoes now in use?
4.	Will the mark 46 torpedo be carried by the maritime R.C.A.F. Argus planes and the naval Sea King helicopters?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): 1. It is anticipated a contract for the first new helicopter/destroyer will be placed in December 1966 with construction commencing early in 1967.
2.	and 4. Consideration is being given to procurement of the U.S.N. mark 46 torpedo for these helicopter/destroyers, the Argus aircraft and Sea King helicopters.
3.	The U.S.N. mark 46 torpedo can operate deeper and faster than current torpedoes and is effective against all types of modern submarine targets.


STUDENT LOANS IN WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What is the number of students in each of
the following provinces who have been granted loans under the student loans act:	Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia?
2.	What are the regulations covering such loans in each of the four provinces?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Finance):: 1. As of December 31, 1964, the number of loans made under the Canada student loans plan in the four western provinces was as follows: Manitoba, 1,786; Saskatchewan, 2,371; Alberta, 3,148; British Columbia, 3,465.
The number of students to whom loans have been granted under the plan may be slightly less, since a few students may have obtained more than one loan within the maximum of $1,000 during an academic year.
2. The regulations issued pursuant to the Canada Student Loans Act apply in all participating provinces. Order in council P.C. 1964-1349 of August 27, 1964, has been superseded by revised and additional regulations, order in council P.C. 1965-483 of March 19, 1965, which will be included in a forthcoming issue of the Canada Gazette.


REMOVAL OF POSTMISTRESS, GLADMAR, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	When was Mrs. Bailey put in charge of the Gladmar post office?
2.	Did the department have any other applications before it for this position on January 7, 1965 and, if so (a) when were these applications received (b) on whose recommendation, when and how was Mrs. Bailey relieved of her position?
3.	What is the policy of the Post Office Department when moving an office?
4.	How much notice is given?

Questions
5.	Are businesses or patrons in the area consulted as to the suitability of the new location?
6.	Do post office inspectors visit the district under question and try to get a public feeling as to how the community can be best served?
7.	In this case, was an attempt made to get the public's feeling on the dismissal of Mrs. Bailey or the moving of the post office to another location?
8.	Did the inspector involved say in any report to the department that the premises of the present location were unsuitable?
8. If not, what was the nature of his report?
10.	Was the proposed new appointee given permission to prepare her building for a post office and, if so, by whom and on what date was permission given?
11.	Is it the policy of the Post Office Department to remove a person from a position when the community served by an office is satisfied with the services provided by such person?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Posimasier General):: 1.	Mrs. Ruth Bailey was placed in temporary charge of the office on January 7, 1965.
2.	Yes.
(a)	Date applications
Applicants	received
Mrs. Ladene Ayotte	26-11-64
Mrs. Ruth Bailey	3-12-64
Mrs. Mayme Rasmussen	7-12-64
Mrs. Nadine Veilleux	7-12-64
Mrs. Janice Pettersen	9-12-64
(b) Mrs. Ruth Bailey was never appointed postmaster but was placed in temporary charge of the post office until a regular appointment could be made. This was explained to her at the time of the transfer. The retiring postmaster had asked to be relieved as soon as possible. Following the appointment of Mrs. Janice Pettersen, by the Postmaster General, the post office was transferred to her.
3.	To make arrangements for the transfer on a date satisfactory to the persons concerned.
4.	There is no fixed period of notice provided for. The date of transfer depends on the arrangements made under No. 3.
5.	Not normally, but this is done in cases where departmental field officers have any doubt as to the suitability of the site offered.
6.	See answer to No. 5. Instructions for a new appointment are issued with the proviso that arrangements are to be made for the transfer of the post office to the person appointed as soon as possible after the conditions of appointment have been met and satisfactory accommodation has been provided.
7.	No public inquiries were made concerning Mrs. Bailey in this respect, as she only had temporary charge of the post office. No local inquiries were made concerning the
[Mr. Watson.)
question of moving the post office to a new location. See answer to No. 10.
8.	No.
9.	The appointment of a postmaster includes the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment.
10.	In the course of proceeding with the appointment, the postmaster-elect was told that she was required to provide suitable postal premises as a condition of employment. The locality was visited on February 27 and the new site was considered satisfactory from a postal standpoint. No special permission is required to prepare premises. See answer to No. 6. This proviso was included in the letter of notification dated 14 January to the postmaster-elect.
11.	The department does not dismiss postmasters unless there are reasons to justify such action. In this case, there is no question of dismissal as the person who was placed in charge on a temporary basis had not been appointed to the postmastership.


STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. Lalulippe: What was the effective strength of the armed forces at the beginning of 1965?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The total strength of the armed forces on 1 Jan. 65 was 116,248.


ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: What is the annual administrative cost of federal buildings in the constituency of Compton-Fron-tenac?
Supplementary answer


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: $15,040.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, QUEBEC AND CANADA
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	In Canada during 1964 (a) how many persons received unemployment insurance (b) what was the total cost of such payments to the federal government?
2.	In Quebec (a) how many persons received unemployment insurance (b) what was the total cost of such payments to the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	(a) Number of persons receiving benefit in Canada in 1964 not available. The number

of claims made during 1964 was 1,859,917. (b) The amount of benefit paid in Canada in 1964 was $344,389,932. This comes from the unemployment insurance fund, to which the government contributed $60,974,238.43 in 1964.
2.	(a) Number of persons receiving benefit in Quebec in 1964 not available. The number of claims made in Quebec during 1964 was 599,109. (b) The amount of benefit paid in Quebec in 1964 was $110,480,021. The government contribution is not available on a provincial basis.


CANADIAN FORCES IN EUROPE-NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What are the names of the newspapers and periodicals published by defence force personnel issued to the Canadian defence forces serving under NATO in Europe?
2.	Do these newspapers or periodicals contain extracts from a pamphlet entitled "Focus on Germany" published by the West German government press?
3.	Have any of these extracts advocated a revision of the frontiers of Germany to the boundaries of 1937?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The Arrowhead-Tribune, R.C.A.F. station, Marville, France; Der Flugplatz, R.C.A.F. station, Zwiebriicken, Germany; The Beaver, 4CIBG.
2.	No. "Focus on Germany" is prepared by the federal German press office for distribution to the Canadian brigade group personnel in Germany.
3.	Not applicable.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR DONATIONS TO MORAL RE-ARMAMENT
Mr. Herridge: Has the Minister of National Revenue given consideration to an investigation of the Moral ReArmament movement as a religious or charitable organization whose financial supporters are entitled to receive income tax exemptions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: The Oxford Group (Moral ReArmament) in Canada has been recognized as charitable for the purpose of the Income Tax Act since 1956. On several occasions since then its status has been reviewed. In September 1964 discussions were held with officials of the organization and oral and written explanations of its activities were received. I am satisfied that it has continued to qualify as a charitable organization for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
Questions


EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, QUEBEC
Mr. Gauthier: Will the municipalities of the province of Quebec be permitted to benefit by an extension of the winter works program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question of whether an extension of the period of the municipal winter work incentive program beyond April 30 would be justified is under consideration. No decision has as yet been reached.


FRASERDALE POST OFFICE, ABITIBI CANYON, ONT.
Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1.	Is there now, or has there ever been a post office known as the Fraserdale post office on the property of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario at Abitibi canyon, Ontario?
2.	What was the name of the person in charge of this post office, and was he an employee of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario?
3. Has there been at any time a theft of mail, money orders, stamps, etc., from this post office and if so, when did it occur, and what action was taken?
4.	What were the findings of any investigations of any such thefts?


René Tremblay: 1. Yes, a post office was established at Fraserdale in 1930 and is still in operation.
2. There have been a number of postmasters who were all employees of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. In view of such frequent transfers, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was appointed postmaster on April 17, 1962.
3 and 4. There is no record of a theft of mail, money orders or stamps, etc., from this post office.


ANIELLO DE LUCA, MONTREAL
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has one Aniello De Luca of the Montreal area been taken into custody on the instructions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
2.	If so, on what date and for what reason or reasons?
3.	Where is De Luca being detained?
4.	Has an application for bail been made and, if so, was such a request opposed on the instructions of the minister or on his behalf?
5.	Prior to his arrest had De Luca filed an application for Canadian citizenship and, if so, at what stage was the processing of the application?
6.	(a) Is Mrs. De Luca a Canadian citizen (b) are any of the four children of Aniello De Luca Canadian citizens by reason of their birth in Canada (c) what are their respective ages?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. No. Mr. De Luca was taken into

Questions
custody under authority of a warrant for arrest issued under section 15(1) of the Immigration Act signed by the director of special services of the immigration branch who has been authorized to exercise this function by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
2.	Mr. De Luca was taken into custody on March 17, 1965, for the purpose of holding an inquiry under the Immigration Act on the basis of a report received under section 19(1) (e) (ii) and (iii) of the Immigration Act which stated in part that Mr. De Luca had been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code and had become an inmate of a jail.
3.	Mr. De Luca is being detained in the Montreal jail.
4.	Mr. De Luca is being detained under the Immigration Act and is also facing charges under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. An application for release under bond was refused by the special inquiry officer acting under the authority of section 18 of the Immigration Act. In connection with the charges under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the judge of the court has denied bail.
5.	No.
6.	(a) No. (b) No. The four children were not born in Canada, (c) Giovanni De Luca, 17 years; Maria De Luca, 14 years; Antonietta De Luca, 12 years; Domenica De Luca, 8 years.


DELIVERY OF SOCIAL WELFARE CHEQUES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Does the Post Office Department follow special directions with regard to the delivery of social welfare allowance cheques in the province of Quebec?
2.	Have postmasters received orders from the Post Office Department to withhold social welfare allowance cheques until the last banking day before the 15th of each month and, if so, for what reasons?


René Tremblay: 1. The Post Office Department has been requested by the Department of National Health and Welfare to effect delivery of family allowance cheques to recipients on the 20th day of each month. The cheques are normally released from provincial capitals in sufficient time to be processed for delivery on that date. A similar arrangement is in effect concerning cheques to recipients of old age security. These cheques are released from provincial capitals in sufficient time for delivery on the third last banking day of the month.
2. Postmasters are not authorized to withhold the delivery of cheques of provincial government origin.


MARINE POST OFFICE, PORT COLBORNE, ONT.
Mr. Southam: Has the marine post office at Port Colbome been closed, and, if so, what alternative arrangements, if any, are being made for postal services for Canadian sailors on the great lakes?


René Tremblay: Yes. The decision to close the Port Colborne marine post office was taken in close cooperation with the St. Lawrence seaway authority. With the renovation of the Welland canal system, and with the aim of the authority to speed up traffic, ships will no longer be permitted to stop to transact business within the canal nor will crew members be permitted to go ashore. With these points in mind, it will no longer be practicable to operate a post office on the canal system. In future, mail for those concerned should be addressed to the ports of call or in care of the shipping company.


DUGOUTS AND STOCK WATERING DAMS, SASK.
Mr. Southam: How many dugouts and stock watering dams were developed in Saskatchewan in 1963 and 1964 under P.F.R.A. and what was the total of federal grants covering the cost of these several projects?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Dugouts	Total of grant
1963	1,390	$327,547.841964	1,633	389,630.95Stock watering dams	Total of grant1963	158	$31,140.871964	80	17,219.46


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Slogan: 1.	What were the expenditures for each band in the Clandeboye Indian agency during the years 1962-1963, 1963-1964, and the estimated expenditures for 1964-1965?
2.	What is the breakdown of these expenditures? Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker,
motions 232, 235 and 240 are acceptable to the government. Motion 236 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning

the consent of the governments of the provinces.
I understand that the hon. member for Hamilton South is agreeable to having his motion No. 239 amended to read "between the government or any department thereof and any citizen regarding the attempts of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bergsma to obtain Canadian citizenship". With this amendment made, the motion is acceptable to the government.
I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.
CANNED MEAT CONTRACT WITH W. J. LAFAVE & SONS
Motion No. 232-Mr. Brewin:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between:
1.	(a) The agricultural stabilization board and W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited of Mount Royal, Quebec, in respect to or arising out of an agreement between the said board and the said company made in or about the month of September 1960. (b) W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited, and anyone writing on their behalf, and the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Justice in respect to the said contract or matters arising out of the said contract.
2.	All correspondence between the agricultural stabilization board, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Justice and any other person relating to the agreement dated in or about the month of September 1960 between the agricultural stabilization board and W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited or arising but of any dealings or transactions of the said W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited with respect to the canned meat which is the subject matter of the said agreement and all papers, documents and reports in the possession of the agricultural stabilization board, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Justice relating to the said agreement and any transactions or dealings of the said W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited or any employee of that company with respect to the canned meat referred to in the said agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 235-Mr. Moore:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the recent agreement of lease between the Post Office Department and Rogers Stores Limited at Rimbey, Alberta.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 236-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the provinces since June 19, 1964, regarding the federal-provincial conference on the report of the royal commission on health services.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secetary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 239-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government and any department or individual regarding the attempts of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bergsma to obtain Canadian citizenship.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house
to adopt the motion subject to the amendment expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 240-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, etc., received by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or officials of his department, together with replies, in connection with the Professor Mulford Q. Sibley case.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the government's views on motion No. 230 in my name which has been on the order paper for several weeks.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of the questions I asked him yesterday and the responses he gave at that time.
I would like to ask the minister whether he can assure the house that he will use the full influence of the government of Canada in making representations to the parties concerned to assure to the greatest possible degree that in the savage war in South Viet Nam the provisions of the Geneva convention as they apply to the treatment and interrogation of prisoners will be observed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for asking this question because it gives me an opportunity of clarifying the reply I made yesterday. I give him the assurance that I will be glad to do this.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs again today whether Canada is doing anything at all to help meet the relief needs of the earthquake area of Chile.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for Exlernal Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the president of Chile has indicated that it is not the intention of the government of Chile to make an appeal for outside aid. Nevertheless the Canadian Red Cross is being alerted to look into the situation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that a very severe winter has prevented many municipalities from completing their winter works incentive programs, and in view of the fact that the contractors whom they have hired are in many cases invoking the act of God clause and are therefore not liable for the failure to complete their programs, has the minister given any further consideration to extending the time limit for the municipal winter works incentive program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration and will be kept under review and a decision taken at a later date, closer to the expiry time.


An hon. Member:: In 60 days?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister if he could give the house and the municipalities some idea when he is likely to make a statement in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the expiry date for the program is the end of April, and
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

the effect of making extensions at this time would be a tendency to slacken activity. We think we ought to wait and look at the situation much closer to the end of April and make a decision at that time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any representations from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities for the extension of this period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not recall, Mr. Speaker, but I will check to see whether there have been any representations from that body.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Can he tell us if the federal government will wait until all the provinces have accepted, by means of a resolution, the Favreau-Fulton formula for amending the constitution before asking the parliament in Ottawa to adopt it? Can he tell us also, should a province refuse to accept the amending formula, if the federal government would submit it to parliament just the same?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait until the provinces have taken action before this matter can be dealt with in the federal parliament.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Prime Minister now in a position to inform the house that because of these recent developments he is ready to recommend that a draft of the constitutional repatriation formula be presented to a parliamentary committee for study, and that public hearings will be held in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait until the provinces have taken action before we recommend what should be done when it reaches this house.


Mr. Nielsen:: It will be done then.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister received any information from the premier of Quebec confirming what appears in the press, to the effect that as far as this

formula is concerned the address that is now before the legislature of Quebec cannot be expected to be dealt with this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received no information, Mr. Speaker, or at least I had not until lunch time, which would confirm that press story.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think the delay which may occur through the failure of the province of Quebec to deal with this formula makes it reasonable to refer the matter for careful study to a committee of this house and to use the time in that way?


An hon. Member:: See what Lesage says.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps by the time the house has reconvened and the speech from the throne is over there will be no delay.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, in view of the addendum to the motion of acceptance by the Liberal government of the province of Saskatchewan that this matter should, among other things, be submitted to a joint committee of parliament, does not the Prime Minister feel that an addendum of this kind passed by so responsible a body as a government under Premier Thatcher should receive his favourable consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Any action taken by the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan, whether the government is that of Mr. Thatcher or any other person, is entitled to very serious consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: And action?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Does the minister intend to alter his policy concerning provincial governments which propose to buy stocks of various Canadian banks, following the protests made by the Quebec premier, Hon. Jean Lesage?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: As I am sure the hon. member appreciates, banking is clearly and definitely
Inquiries of the Ministry a federal responsibility under the British North America Act. This government has no intention of permitting federal powers and responsibilities in this area to be eroded.


John George Diefenbaker: "In this area".


William Heward Grafftey: Repeat; "in this area".


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There seem to be interruptions from across the way. I would be glad to rephrase that sentence and say "in any area which comes within the federal powers under the constitution". If the provinces were permitted to enter the banking business, directly or indirectly, the powers of the federal government would or might become blurred, or difficulties might arise. The sensible thing is to take action in advance of any such difficulties arising, and that is what the government proposes to do.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would be good enough to explain to us just in what manner the powers of the federal government in connection with monetary control could possibly be affected no matter who was a shareholder in a chartered bank under the Bank Act.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I continue to be surprised at the emphasis and the feeling with which the hon. member supports the policies of the premier of British Columbia. I suggest to him that in the next session and at the appropriate time when the Bank Act is up for revision I will be very glad to answer that question.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Would the minister be good enough to table the letters which were exchanged between the premier of Quebec and himself on this very interesting constitutional statement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It so happens that I have copies of the correspondence with me, and I would be happy to table them if that is the wish of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of his attitude, can the minister tell us whether school boards and municipal corporations will also be forbidden to buy shares of chartered banks?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sure the hon. member above all members in this house will be very interested in the revisions contemplated in the Bank Act, and when they are presented to the house I shall be glad to go into that matter and any other details or questions which he or anybody else may wish to put to me.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the hon. gentleman in his anxiety to be of help will tell the house whether the fact that the government of Quebec wants to do this justifies him in saying that no sensible group would possibly advocate this, as he said a moment ago.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I found the question put by the Leader of the Opposition somewhat vague and confusing. I was not quite clear as to what he meant.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has a capacity for being confused. I cannot do anything about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask him what he meant a few moments ago when he said something about no one being sensible who would advocate the ownership of any shares on the part of a provincial government. I am sure I heard him correctly.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought somebody was confused, and I find it is the Leader of the Opposition. What I did say-and I have the words here-was that the sensible thing is to take action in advance of any such difficulties arising.



REPORTED SALE OF BONDS AND GOLD BY BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I have been wondering about the significance of the report that in recent days the Bank of Canada has made a special offering to the bond houses of government bonds of every series, and has also sold $200 million worth of gold to the United States federal reserve system. Does this indicate some change in policy, perhaps deflationary measures?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question. The report regarding the sale of gold to the United States government is without foundation.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is what I was planning to do. With regard to the first part of the question, it is the case that the Bank of Canada engages from time to time in open market operations in government of Canada securities, and in doing so employs a variety of techniques. I am informed by the bank that the particular technique referred to was in fact used yesterday, and that no special significance is to be attached to its use. It is a technique which is frequently used by the federal reserve bank in the United States, for example. The bank's operations in government securities are reflected in its weekly statement, and it is not the policy of the government to make detailed comments on these operations. However, I should like to reassure the hon. member; there is no thought on the part of this government of introducing deflationary policies at the present time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In her endeavours to cut down cigarette smoking and to prevent teenagers acquiring the habit, is the hon. lady giving any consideration to asking the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a public agency, to set a national example by removing all cigarette advertising from its programs?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am considering that.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Having in mind the efforts of the department of health to combat cigarette-connected diseases, would the hon. gentleman undertake to inquire of the C.B.C. whether the corporation considers it a proper activity to promote the sale of cigarettes in Canada through the acceptance of such advertising on television and radio?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will be very glad to do so.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a copy of a resolution passed by the Port Hood development council strongly supporting the establishment of a ferry service between eastern Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton? If the minister has received this resolution, can he advise the house what action he or his department can suggest to implement this service, which will be most beneficial to both areas?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I have received the circular in question. I notice it is addressed primarily to the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I am sure any representations they might make to the federal government on this subject will be given the most careful consideration, particularly by my colleague the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: supplementary question with respect to the ferry service on the bay of Fundy between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the apparent failure of the Canadian Pacific Railway to interest itself in the facilities which are necessary in Nova Scotia in the constituency represented by my learned friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Will the minister give every assurance, in order to arrest many fears regarding government responsibility in this matter, that by subsidy or otherwise the government will protect this necessary service between these two ports in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick so they may continue on a full time basis in the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Armstrong) have already spoken to me about this problem, and I know the interest that is taken in it by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) and the hon. member who posed the question. This is, of course, one of the great historic routes in Canada, and no minister of transport could be indifferent to the service.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister had any conversations with the officials of the C.P.R. since
Inquiries of the Ministry this announcement was made, or is there something of a misunderstanding in that the company has stated that these facilities should perhaps be postponed until they have developed final plans for the future, rather than making a definite announcement in respect of discontinuance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The ship that is actually now in service, according to what I have read in the newspapers, will be in service, unless something happens to it, until the mid-1970's. In light of that circumstance, perhaps not unnaturally the company felt it was a little early to commit itself finally in respect of what might happen at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: There may be a little premature dismay in respect of this rather doubtful announcement which was made the other day, and perhaps people are reading more into it than they should.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no occasion for alarm in respect of this service in the future, because I do not think we can contemplate the conclusion of that vital service.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister received any report or reply to the representations that he indicated he would make when he answered a question posed by the hon. member for Halifax about doubling the service in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's suggestion was passed on to the officials of the railway company, but so far no indication of their attitude, nor reply has been received. I will give them another prod and no doubt the officials of the C.P.R. will be reading with great interest today's Hansard.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport in relation to the request respecting service between these two most beautiful islands in Canada, whether he would consider doing a little more, since the representations have been made by two of his colleagues, than waiting for the governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to express their views, such as asking the Atlantic development board to conduct a feasibility investigation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am giving more consideration to service between Prince Edward Island and a still more beautiful island, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will know the one to which I refer.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that addressed to the Minister of Transport regarding ferry service between Saint John and Digby. Does the minister not recall the Liberal promise to provide a new ferry service there in spite of C.P.R. responsibility?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not quite understand the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question. Does the Minister of Transport not recall the Liberal promise to provide a new ferry service between Saint John and Digby regardless of C.P.R. responsibility?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I must say quite frankly that at this moment I am not sure what the hon. gentleman is talking about and I am not sure he does. fLater:]


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the tourist season is rapidly approaching, I wonder whether the genial maritime Minister of Transport could give the house a report on the present state of negotiations between the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia from the point of view of the progress being made in establishing a much needed second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are very active.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works in order that I may reply to many questions asked by a number of people who are interested in this situation. Will the parliamentary secretary inform the house as to whether his department accepts responsibility for replacing wharves, launching ramps, rip-rap, pilings and dredging on the completion of the Columbia river treaty projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once again, this is an appropriate question for the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, that was really a dud.



BAY OF FUNDY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like tc direct to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the house that the investigation into the feasibility of harnessing the tides in the bay of Fundy from a power point of view has been concluded, particularly in view of the fact that Dr. C. L. Gosse stated he had obtained such information from the chairman of the Atlantic development board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as so often happens to the hon. gentleman's questions-and I do not know whether this is because of bad acoustics in that area of this chamber where he sits -it was lost to me and I have not understood what he said.


Robert Carman Coates: Is the minister in a position to inform the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the question I would ask the hon. member to place it on the order paper, following which we will receive a very detailed reply, I am sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can read the question in Hansard and answer it tomorrow.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether, in view of the fact that this is the seventh anniversary of the election in Canada of the record number of 208 Progressive Conservatives, he has any comment to make regarding any future influence that this lucky number may have.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question which should be placed on the order paper, and I feel that the hon. member was rightfully allowed to ask it. The answer to this question is no.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.

Has the government received representations from municipalities or intermediary bodies of the metropolitan area of Chicoutimi, requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Saguenay, a navigable waterway coming under federal jurisdiction, because the construction of such a bridge is urgently needed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice and provide the hon. member with a complete answer tomorrow, if we are still sitting.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question at this time to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of the fact that we may not be sitting tomorrow, as one might expect from the indication given by another minister. My question relates to the interdepartmental committee in respect of hunting and fishing rights of Indians, to which reference was made a day or two ago. Would the minister not think it worth while to remove members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from that committee before making the desired announcement regarding its personnel at the earliest possible moment?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it was decided that we should have members of the R.C.M.P. named to that committee because of the broad experience which members of that force have had in the north country. I think a member of that force certainly should be on the committee.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will Canada be one of the 55 nations attending the United Nations conference on trade and development which I understand begins on April 5? If so, who will be the representatives, what will be the agenda, and what significance does this conference have?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. I would have to refresh my memory as to the names of the personnel of that delegation. We consider this a very important conference, and of particular importance to the less developed countries of the world. It is our policy to send a delegation to represent Canada which is competent to take an active part in the discussions. As to the agenda itself, I would also have to refresh my memory in order to give a detailed answer, although I think it might be inappropriate for me to do so in answer to a question posed on orders of the day. A written reply would be more appropriate.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs took as notice a question I directed to him regarding Canada's participation in United Nations birth control activities. I wonder whether he has taken notice and is now in a position to answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten my hon. friend's important question, and I will give him a reply tomorrow.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which relates to representations made by the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion to the effect that the 10 per cent increase in war disability pensions which was made last November is too meagre. Will the Prime Minister say whether the government is now considering an additional and fair increase in these pensions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the further representations made on this matter are receiving consideration.

Inquiries of the Ministry
AGRICULTURE	NATIONAL DEFENCE



QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for the application of the ARDA program. I know that he is interested in anything having to do, directly or indirectly, with agriculture in eastern Canada, and particularly in Quebec.
I would like to ask him if he is aware of the brief which was presented to the Minister of Agriculture on March 19 by the catholic farmers' union of the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, in which assistance was requested for the farmers of that district who suffered great losses last year through adverse weather?


Maurice Sauvé: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received that brief.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of the ruling of the federal labour board yesterday to the effect that the $1.25 minimum wage will not apply to employees of the C.N.R.'s Fort Garry hotel. I wonder what steps the minister and the department propose to take to see to it that crown corporations pay their employees at least the minimum wage approved by parliament in the Canada labour standards code legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the comments in the report of the conciliation board are views expressed by the board, and do not directly affect the application of these standards to any of the industries in question.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that federal crown corporations will be paying their employees at least the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour set out in the legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, federal
crown corporations will be expected to comply with the law fully.



NATO-CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO SPECIAL AIRBORNE FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I have not sent him notice. Has Canada taken on a new military task which involves the use of nuclear weapons in agreeing to contribute to a special airborne force under NATO with a nuclear capability?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



PULPWOOD-INQUIRY AS TO EUROPEAN MARKET OUTLOOK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the depressed condition of pulpwood prices in Nova Scotia, would the minister be able to advise with regard to the long range outlook for markets in Europe for pulpwood?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question obviously is, the hon. member can hardly expect a detailed answer at this time.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I should like to speak on the matter at ten o'clock tomorrow evening.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry. Several weeks ago the minister announced that Canada's second heavy water plant would be developed at Estevan, Saskatchewan, and that Western Deuterium Limited had been the successful tenderer. Later the Western Deuterium bid was qualified, depending on whether its formula for the production of heavy water was satisfactory to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Can the minister say whether Atomic Energy of Canada has made a decision yet on this important matter and, if not, when does he expect a report from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: By April 15, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Mcllrailh moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $762,547,249.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	Two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $730,438,474;
(b) an additional eight twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs item 15 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $8,344,666.67;
(c)	an	additional	five	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of External Affairs item 20 (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $456,458.34;
(d)	an	additional	four	twelfths	of	the	total
amount of Atomic Energy item 5 (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $533,333.34;
(e) an additional three twelfths of the total amount of National Research Council item 10 (Schedule D) of the said main estimates, $7,675,000.;
(f)	an	additional	two	twelfths	of	the	total
amounts of Legislation item 20; Mines and Technical Surveys item 25: Secretary of States item 30, and Transport item 95, (Schedule E) of the said main estimates, $7,314,783.34;
(g)	an	additional	one	twelfth	of	the	total
amounts of External Affairs item 5; Justice item 1; Legislation item 5; Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45, 50 and 60; National Revenue item 5 and Trade and Commerce item 15, (Schedule F) of the said main estimates, $7,784,533.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Chairman:: The President of the Privy Council.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to make any statement?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be very glad to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. The Chair had recognized the President of the Privy Council in the first instance. I understand he will make preliminary remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, first of all I think we have seen the President of the Privy Council resuming his seat after being recognized, and that is why you recognized me afterwards. Therefore, if the President of the Privy Council has risen and resumed his seat because he had nothing to say, I believe-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.
Interim Supply


Mr. Lambert:: Sit down, you have nothing to say either.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I gather that the President of the Privy Council perhaps had some reason for resuming his seat, but as it is his resolution I suppose he should have the right to make remarks if he wants to do so at this time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I can assure members of the committee that my resumption of my seat was in a desire to be co-operative with all hon. members of the committee and for no other reason. The amounts requested in this resolution are intended to provide for all necessary requirements for the public service for the next two months, that is, up to May 31, and in no instance is the total amount of any item being released by the resolution. Perhaps I should give a short explanation of the items for which more than one sixth is being requested.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; it is rather noisy in the committee. May we have order, please?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps, I could go through the resolutions briefly and give some explanation. It will be noted that an additional eight twelfths of the external affairs vote, item 15 of the main estimates is being requested. This item has to do with Canada's contribution to a series of international funds, and as these payments are made at the start of the fiscal year, the amounts are needed now.
Then, the next item is an additional five twelfths of external affairs item 20 of the main estimates. This provides for contributions to the programs of the NATO science committee, the international civil aviation organization, grants to the international Red Cross, the commonwealth institute and the UN training and research institute. An additional portion is required to relieve the financial position of certain international agencies.
The next additional amount requested is four twelfths of the total amount of Atomic Energy item 5 of the main estimates. This is the vote in those estimates for providing assistance to universities. The arrangements with the universities call for paying half the amount early in the fiscal year.
Then, the next additional amount being requested is three twelfths of national research council item 10 of the main estimates. This vote provides for payment of scholarships and grants in aid of research to

Interim Supply
Canadian universities. A large part of these grants is made early in the fiscal year.
The next additional amount being requested is under Legislation item 20 and has to do with the cost of operating the House of Commons. Since the costs are higher when the house is not in recess, and it is expected it will be sitting in May and June, the request is made for that reason.
Then, there is Mines and Technical Surveys item 25; Secretary of State item 30 and Transport item 95 of the main estimates. The Mines and Technical Surveys item has to do with field surveys. The one for the Secretary of State department has to do with paying for a carryover of the cost of the memorial centre in Charlottetown, an overdue bill. Then, the Transport item is connected with the Canadian maritime commission and deals with ship subsidies. There are a number of ships at the point where substantial payments have to be made in the first two months of the year to meet the construction program. These payments come at irregular intervals and it so happens an abnormally high proportion of them are due in the next two months.
Then, the last additional item requested is for an additional one twelfth of the total amounts of External Affairs item 5; Justice item 1; Legislation item 5; Mines and Technical Surveys items 10, 15, 45, 50 and 60; National Revenue item 5 and Trade and Commerce item 15 of the main estimates. The item concerning External Affairs has to do with supplying certain posts abroad. The item in Justice has to do with the federal government's requirement for providing for the costs of territorial governments which are later recovered from them. The item having to do with Legislation has to do with sessional requirements of the Senate. Then, the Mines and Technical Surveys items have to do with surveying activities. These surveying activities are undertaken early in the summer and costs are incurred during the better weather. There will be more than two twelfths required in the first two months of the new fiscal year. The National Revenue items have to do with the unpleasant fact that we have to pay our income taxes in April and there is the added cost for hiring of additional staff. The Trade and Commerce item has to do with the spring and summer advertising campaign of the travel bureau. This is undertaken at the start of the tourist season each year.
I believe that, with these explanations, I have covered the reasons for making the requests we are making. I do not know that

there is much more I can usefully add at this stage, except to state that the bill based on this resolution is in the usual form for the interim supply bill. Of course, I will give the formal undertaking that the adoption of the resolution will not abridge the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee of supply. The rights and privileges of members will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was just going to ask for that undertaking, the usual formal undertaking. The President of the Privy Council having given it, there is no other comment I have to make at this time.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, under interim supply, of bringing to the attention of this committee and the people of Canada a very important economic situation with which we are confronted in the agreement relating to concessions on automotive products between Canada and the government of the United States of America. This is the first opportunity this house has had of bringing the matter to the attention of the government. The agreement is a masterpiece of complexity. It has brought about considerable excitement and a great amount of interest in the country. It has been referred to as a piece of bold negotiation, and I believe that is right. I am also of the opinion the agreement was reached without realizing many of the pitfalls which are now being revealed.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot at stake. We are certainly tinkering with the manufacture of a very important product in this country. It is important because all Canadians have a stake in the impact of this treaty on car prices, and the employment picture. It will affect many people who have a close, personal involvement in it. It will have far reaching effects on related industries in our country. The matter of freer trade is an aspect of this agreement, as is the matter of trade balance. I say, therefore, it is of great importance to the country as a whole. It is important because seven departments of the government were involved in drafting this treaty with the United States.
The Department of Industry, the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Labour, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of National Revenue and the De-

partment of Justice were all involved in drafting this treaty, yet the responsibility for it falls on the shoulders of one person, the Minister of Industry. He is the man who must accept the blame, or the man who will accept any credit that might come from it. He backed it, and for all I know he may have backed into it.
We have not got all the picture, but on the surface it would appear to be a complete sell-out to the United States so far as the automotive and car parts industry is concerned. All the negotiations took place in the United States. It was a matter of David and Goliath, and it remains to be seen who will come out of it as David and who as Goliath. It is important to all parts of Canada, but of particular interest to the province of Ontario because 97 per cent of the automotive and car parts industry is located in that province.
I ask, why was this brought about by a treaty? Why by order in council? Why was parliament circumvented? Why were we, the elected representatives of the people, ignored? Why had we no opportunity to debate this important subject, one that has such far reaching economic consequences?
When I return to my riding and somebody asks me "What about this car parts and car manufacturing agreement with the United States?" I must admit I do not know much about it, because we did not have a chance to debate it in the House of Commons. That is the way the government chose to do it, and I am at a loss to know why they did not bring this treaty before parliament for full scale debate before signing it.
It is a matter of an independent nation such as Canada going down to the United States and having a conference with the three big car manufacturers. It was a matter of their getting together and talking it over, and then going to President Johnson and saying, "Sign this, because it is good for the United States. It is good for the industry. Go ahead and sign it." This would seem to be the way it was done. The Canadian representatives even went down to President Johnson's farm. There they had a good time and signed the treaty, while we, the elected representatives, remained at home and were told nothing about this very important treaty.
What has it to do with the commonwealth preference? Following the signing of this treaty, U.K. cars which had the privilege of coming into Canada duty free were faced with immediate competition from cars imported duty free from the United States. This
Interim Supply
brings up the problem of GATT. Member nations of GATT say this is not within keeping of the terms of GATT, and they expect to be accorded similar free treatment, as is their right as members of GATT. Under the terms of GATT, any member nation which gives special privileges to any other member must give the same opportunity to all members. So far as I can see it is a one-way street. It took effect in Canada right away on January 18, but it will not take effect in the United States until congress meets and discusses it. That is why I say it is a oneway street.
I would now like to refer to the constitutional picture, and ask the government why it did not give us the opportunity to debate the treaty in this house? That has not been the policy of Liberal governments in the past. On the constitutional question, the proper procedure to be followed in cases such as this is indicated under the British and Canadian constitutions. The crown enjoys the sole right of conduct on foreign relations which includes the making and, if necessary, ratification of international agreements of all kinds.
It is a rare thing in the United Kingdom for the government to ask the approval of parliament, in the house of commons, before making or ratifying treaties, even formal and important ones; but we in Canada have not followed this principle. Without derogating from the legal rights of the crown, a custom has developed in Canada different from that in the United Kingdom.
On June 21, 1926 the Canadian House of Commons adopted a resolution moved by the then prime minister, Mackenzie King, the final paragraph of which read, that the house considers that-
-before His Majesty's Canadian ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.
On April 12, 1928, in the course of the debate on the international sanitary convention, the same right hon. gentleman had this to say:
I submit that the day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings. In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not confine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the

Interim Supply
like. I feel parliamentary approval should apply where there are Involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far reaching character.
That was the attitude of a Liberal government in former days, seeking more parliamentary control over international agreements.
On April 9,	1962, the present Prime
Minister when he was leader of the opposition had this to say in debating the Columbia river agreement:
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this treaty, before ratification, should go before the committee on external affairs.
Then he went on to say:
I tell the prime minister-
Referring to the present right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
-that the committee on external affairs considered every important treaty while we were in office.
Now what do we find? This government, with a new group of nine cabinet members who were formerly senior civil servants, does not think in terms like that. It goes ahead and negotiates treaties without giving us the right to discuss them in parliament.
I should now like to review briefly the matter of removing duty on agricultural implements, as introduced by the Liberal government in 1944, and may I say I think that in order to substantiate debate and consideration of new ideas one should always refer to the pages of history to see if he is on firm ground. At that time the Liberal member for Brantford city, who is presently a senator, had this to say when talking about removing the duty on agricultural implements imported into Canada, and this is to be found on page 5155 of Hansard for July 20, 1944:
I referred to the removal of the duty on agricultural implements when the budget was being debated in the house. At that time I said that X could not approve it. I have given the matter careful consideration since, and I am still opposed to the removal of the duty on agricultural implements.
Then he went on to say:
-the removal of the duty might have a detrimental effect on the workers in these factories.
He felt at that time that, contrary to what was the general belief, if the tariff was removed Canada would reap a greater share of the manufacturing of agricultural implements in this country. This seems to be the belief in the car industry as well. But I would remind the minister that this was not the case in the agricultural implements business. Canada got the short end of the stick. We did not get nearly the share of the manu-

facturing of agricultural implements that we were supposed to get or that people thought we would get. As a matter of fact, from the year 1944, when the duty of 7J per cent was removed, the production of agricultural implements in the United States increased about six times, and production in Canada only increased a little over four times. So in that case the United States had the opportunity, and took advantage of it, of manufacturing more agricultural implements and shipping them into Canada duty free. The same thing can happen in the car industry.
I would like to say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that this party has always been the party that took into consideration the automotive industry and had full respect and thought for that industry. Who was it that removed the sales tax on automobiles? We were the party that removed it. I know that the Liberals reduced it, and I also know that when they reduced it they were the party that left the car dealer with stock on hand holding the bag for the sales tax they had paid. When we reduced the sales tax and then removed it completely, we compensated the car dealer for any stock that he had on hand. If anybody wishes to confer with any car dealer or car manufacturer in this country, I think he will be told that this party gave them a very, very square deal on the removing of the sales tax.
To understand fully this treaty one must go back some years to the introduction of the Bladen report. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that it was a Conservative government which set up this one-man commission. Professor Bladen brought down a report so simple in its explanation and outline that it is a wonder it had not been done years before. At that time no automatic transmissions were being made in Canada, and the Conservative government decided to allow the automotive companies to bring automatic transmissions into this country and to remit the duty on them to the extent that the value of the imports was counterbalanced by exports of Canadian-made automotive parts to the United States. This move was designed to increase the manufacture of car parts in Canada, and worked extremely well.
When the Liberal government took office the Drury mark I plan was introduced. Under this plan the privilege of claiming rebate of duty on imports from the United States was extended to all car parts, once again to the extent that the imports were counterbalanced by exports of Canadian-made parts. A clause was also inserted which required that to

qualify for such a privilege the car manufacturer must maintain a commonwealth, essentially Canadian, content of at least 60 per cent in the vehicles he sold in Canada. Naturally, the plan was somewhat more complicated than this, but these were the essentials of the mark 1 Drury plan. The effect of this plan hurt some parts companies in the United States. That is understandable. One particular company, the Modine Radiator Company, decided to take legal action. The company held that the plan amounted to dumping and applied to congress for the imposition of countervailing duties, which would have the same effect as the reimposition of the customs tariff. Naturally, had congress granted this request the mark I Drury plan would have been dead.
In anticipation of the decision of congress- the case has been heard but the decision has not been announced as yet, to my knowledge -negotiations were started between the Canadian and the United States governments for a plan which would replace the one about to collapse. I do not know who commenced the negotiations but I would strongly suspect that it was the American people who instituted them. During these discussions the automotive parts manufacturers association was consulted somewhat reluctantly by the government, but little heed was paid to their recommendations favourable to Canadian owned industries. It should also be remembered that many of the members of the automotive parts manufacturers association are United States controlled and, to say the least, would have divided loyalties.
Under the new Drury mark II plan the privilege was given to automobile manufacturers, and to them only, to import cars and parts for original equipment manufacture free of duty into Canada, provided they fulfilled certain conditions. Again I say this treaty is wrapped up in complexity, Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree to this when I bring the following to the attention of hon. members. These conditions were: First, that they made vehicles of the type now being considered in the base year, August 1, 1962 to July 31, 1964; second, that they maintained at least the same proportion of cars made in Canada to cars sold in Canada as pertained in the base year, and in any case not less than 75 per cent; and third, that they maintained at least the same Canadian content as they had in the base year. It is in this third condition that there lies the source of trouble.
Under the mark I plan the Canadian content had to be at least 60 per cent, and say a company sold cars to the value of $100 million,
Interim Supply
the Canadian content in parts, labour and overhead had to be at least $60 million. Under the new mark II plan, the same company can increase the number of cars manufactured to a value of, say $200 million, and still maintain only a Canadian content of $60 million. If I do not understand this properly, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to correct me. However, I asked him questions in the house earlier about changing the dollar value to a percentage value and he accepted my questions as though they were in order. I will say to the minister that I am in some doubt in this respect, namely as to whether with regard to this increase of $100 million, 60 per cent of the increase has to be composed of Canadian content. It is logical that the manufacturer should purchase all the parts he requires from his own subsidiary in the United States, where the volume of production is at least ten times greater than that pertaining in Canada, with the result that prices are greatly reduced. This is only common sense and good business. He can then import these parts duty free into Canada, build them into cars and sell those cars either in Canada or the United States. He does two things. First, he increases his operation in his parts producing plant in the United States, thus increasing his profits because increased production means that unit cost goes down. In the second place, he increases his assembly operations in Canada so as to maintain his Canadian content. Once again, he has increased his profit.
I know the minister will tell us that this plan will create lots of jobs-9,000 jobs I think he said. Well, it may create some jobs on the assembly lines, which call chiefly for unskilled workers. If this is the kind of employment the government wants, with its ups and downs, its seasonal fluctuations, it is possible they will get it, but I do not think this policy is good logic. As against this increase which the minister expects in the assembly side of the business-and I for one am doubtful about it-what about the Canadian owned auto parts manufacturers who will have to lay off hundreds of people? What about the purchasing departments of the three main companies in Canada-perhaps I should confine their number to two which are considered as something more than United States subsidiaries? What necessity will they have for retaining their purchasing departments in Canada? They will no longer be necessary. They can close them down and do all their business from head offices in the United States, as a consequence of which

Interim Supply
people here will be laid off work. When these considerations are balanced out I doubt whether there will be any increase in employment such as the minister has suggested.
Since all these various profits have now been diverted to United States owned companies-and this is a fact-the result can only be rapidly increased domination of Canadian industry by United States capital and the disappearance of Canadian owned companies. I am surprised that the Minister of Industry should have adopted a policy which would go so far as to allow the takeover of Canadian owned companies by United States operators, particularly when his colleague the Minister of Finance has gone out of his way to do everything humanly possible to maintain Canadian ownership of the factories in this country.
This is another example of legislation at cross purposes. Indeed, I have never seen a government which has engaged in so much legislation at cross purposes as has this one. For example, the Minister of Agriculture made a subsidy on tobacco available, and at the same time the Minister of National Health and Welfare spends $700,000 to tell people not to smoke the weed. The Minister of Labour said he wanted firms to employ men aged 45 and over, and the government spent $3 million odd to encourage the employment of men in this age group. This resulted in the employment of only 2,000 people; it was in force for five months at a cost to the taxpayer of more than $3 million. The Minister of Justice was asked in this house whether his department employed men aged 45 years and over, and he replied: "No, that is not our policy". There are other examples of this cross purpose legislation, but they escape my mind at the moment. The subject I have been discussing is a typical example. One minister says we must encourage our Canadian owned industries while another says: "Come on in, boys, the coast is clear. Start up your manufacturing, the gates are open."
The Minister of Industry tells us that the three automotive corporations, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have undertaken in writing to increase their Canadian content above that which was achieved in the base year. However, these undertakings, if they exist, are in the form of confidential letters from the presidents of the car companies; they are secret and, since they are no part of the plan, they are not enforceable. We do not have access to these letters. I have two motions on the order paper asking for them-


An hon. Member:: The press do.


Alfred Dryden Hales: One of my hon. friends says the press has access to their letters. If members of the press are entitled to see them, surely we as members of parliament should be entitled to see them. But I am advised that it is very doubtful whether we will have the opportunity to see these documents affecting this important industry.
There are two other aspects of the situation which must be considered deplorable. It is deplorable that the Canadian government should have negotiated an agreement of such far reaching scope and rely for its results on private arrangements with the presidents of three foreign corporations. Second, it must be considered deplorable that at no time has this plan been discussed by the elected members of parliament. The government decided to treat this matter as involving merely a reduction in tariffs and was thus able to introduce these arrangements by order in council.
There is much more that could be said on this subject, a subject of great complexity and far reaching consequences. I know there are other hon. members who wish to speak on it. I simply ask these questions: Why did we not have an opportunity to discuss a matter of this importance? Why was this brought about by order in council when members of this government themselves suggested that far reaching arrangements such as this should be made by treaty and discussed in the house? In my humble opinion this agreement has brought about free trade for the producer but not free trade for the consumer.


John George Diefenbaker: A free ride.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It may be a free ride for some, too, as one of my hon. friends has said. This represents a $50 million loss to Canada on the basis of last year's imports worth $600 million, subject to a duty of 17J per cent on cars and 25 per cent on parts. This money has been put into the pockets of the car producers. Canadians pay the same for their new cars-there is no mistake about that- and the Canadian manufacturer keeps the change.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Churchill:: What does the Liberal party get out of this?


Alfred Dryden Hales: There are an awful lot of answers still to come and I am sure other hon. members are anxious to speak on this subject. I understand this agreement is coming before the U.S. congress shortly. What

will happen if congress does not approve of this arrangement? Will our tariffs be put back as they were, or will a free tariff situation continue? There are a hundred and one questions members could ask, and we have a right to know the answers. But there has been no chance to debate this subject, no opportunity for the elected representatives of the people to express their views.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My colleagues have asked me to express on behalf of this group the attitude we are adopting at this time, and perhaps I may do so by making what one might call a non-speech. We have the hope-and it is shared by others in the house-that we can complete interim supply quickly and that hon. members who feel they must call attention to certain subjects and raise certain points should raise them on the supplementary estimates, to the end that we might almost guarantee clearing up the work of this session as soon as possible.
I realize this is sometimes a large order. I can certainly understand why the previous speaker felt obliged to make the case he did. I appreciate, too, that he made the case very well. But in these circumstances there is, one might say, a Pandora's box which could be opened if we decide to continue the discussion on interim supply.
I do not know whether you must have a speech in your briefcase to have aspirations to be a leader of things, in the sense that Napoleon thought that every good soldier should have a field marshal's baton in his pack, but I believe that almost everyone in this house, without prodding, is capable of feeling that his nation, his constituency or the other members of his party require him to make a speech. In light of that I should just like to remind hon. members of some things of which they are, I am sure, well aware.
This session has been going on for a very long time. All records have been broken as to length of sessions and I am sure it will be many years before the situation is repeated. We have covered a tremendous number of topics and have put into effect a sizeable amount of legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, one of the ironies of the situation is this: If we are to be faced with an election campaign within a short period of time I suppose the theme of the government's campaign will be not unlike the theme contained in that Liberal pamphlet which most of us have been looking at recently, and I refer to the one with the beautiful printing, coloured 20220-823
Interim Supply
in red, yellow and grey with a maple leaf stylized to the extent that it almost is projected into the future, containing a long list of marvellous achievements of this government. The irony is that this government suggests that it is a poor, persecuted government, beset by a minority situation and a bunch of hatchet people in the opposition, particularly the right hon. leader of the official opposition. Yet it has attained a great deal. This is a contradiction.
In fairness and without being sarcastic in respect of what we have achieved, we have achieved this in spite of, or perhaps because of the fact that we have a minority parliament. I wonder whether some of these items would have been brought before us if we had not had a minority parliament. I wonder on the other hand whether it was necessary to have such a lengthy session. Here again, if you want to put the responsibility on anyone in particular it seems to me that the length of this session can be mainly explained in terms of what is an old H. L. Mencken expression, which I think I saw in a column by George Bain in which he stated that we had a federal government and Prime Minister of "doomocracy". It is because of that fact that we have had this long and extremely dragging session.
So many of the events of this session seem to be so far back in time that they have become almost ancient history. How many of us remember the Girouard affair, and that rollicking time we had at the sessions of the committee on privileges and elections. How many of us remember the hon. member for Renfrew South and the hon. member for Bow River giving us a sort of stylized debate, such as the one which took place between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas? That seems almost too far in the past to remember, yet it took place during this session. I wonder how many of us have forgotten about the Pearson film and how that great artistic masterpiece was denied to a large Canadian audience because of factors that are still not clear?


An hon. Member:: It is still on the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as one hon. member has suggested, this is still on the order paper, but it has been forgotten and has been allowed to slip off into the past. However, that Pearson film incident occurred during this lengthy session.
We have been involved in many things during this session, but I think the time has

Interim Supply
come when we should pack it up as quickly as possible and get on to what we anticipate will be a good minority situation. Let us move on to the anticipated speech from the throne which will contain some other things which perhaps will fall flat, as did some of the measures that were heralded at the outset of this session.
I think the end of this session was very apparent today when we looked around this chamber and noted a large absentee situation. This is the time of the week when we can expect most members to be in the house because they all hold caucuses on Wednesday and because the "T-to-T" tradition does not affect attendance on Wednesday. During the question period today, when one would expect most members to be in attendance, there was a meagre representation. I do not think it is any reflection upon those members who were absent to mention this fact, because it is due probably to fatigue and the fact that the pension plan and opting out legislation are now out of the way.
Mr. Chairman, I think the silent members provide the best proof that this session should end as quickly as possible. Certainly that is the feeling of the members of this party. We believe that if we are not out of here by Friday we should all have our heads examined. The very least of our hopes is that all members in all parties feel the same way.
The final point I should like to make is that in this open end kind of situation, with interim supply before us it sometimes just takes one or two speeches on the same theme, a temper lost and the whole thing can blow up again resulting in the session marching on almost interminably. I mention this as a warning, or a suggestion if you wish, to those individuals who sit mainly in the treasury benches, in the hope that they will continue to practice as much restraint as they possibly can during the next short period of time in order to keep the spirit of this place amiable, so that we can tidy up the business of this session and get on to the new session. That is certainly the wish of this party. But in conclusion let me say that we do have those speeches in our briefcases or in our desks.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to tell the house, on behalf of our party, that we have no intention to delay the passage of interim supply, because in the past, it used to be passed rather promptly. As a matter of fact,

it is only in the last two years that interim supply has given rise to extended debates.
I should like, however, to take this opportunity to raise three points which come to my mind in particular and are of concern to me and to a great number of Canadians in my area and throughout the country.
I should like first of all to call the attention of the house and of the ministers concerned, more particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), to a brief submitted to the Minister of Agriculture last week and to which very little attention seems to have been given.
This brief from the Saguenay federation of the catholic farmers' union was prepared following a most unfortunate experience that farmers in the Saguenay area went through last year, first as a result of a hail storm which caused extensive damage in a certain sector and then because of bad weather during the year.
As a matter of fact, the Saguenay had rains which were more than persistent and, to all practical purposes, farmers were unable to sow. And what they did sow did not grow and, because of persistent bad weather, they were unable to get in what had managed to grow.
I should like to put on record the introductory letter to this brief. It is so explicit that it should be printed in Hansard. That letter was written in Chicoutimi last March 19 and is addressed to Hon. Harry Hays, Minister of Agriculture. I quote:
Honourable Minister:
As you learned from Hon. Alcide Courcy, Quebec's minister of agriculture, a very large number of farms in this province suffered considerably from the bad weather during all last year's farming season.
With regard to the Saguenay-Lake St. John region, the farmers lost approximately $5 million, which makes it a disaster farming area.
In case of serious disaster, the international practice is for the state to help the victims, even when they are insured. Many countries even provide assistance for citizens of other countries in times of disaster.
When the agricultural district of Saguenay-Lake St. John was struck by disaster, we asked the help of the Quebec government and we insisted that the province seek federal assistance.
Now, the Quebec minister of agriculture has forwarded to us a copy of your letter which is, for us, nearly the equivalent of a polite refusal on the grounds that Quebec had not yet set up a crop insurance scheme.
We recognize that Quebec farmers should enjoy the benefits of crop insurance since we have been advocating such coverage for years, but we must stress that only a few provinces have set up crop insurance programs until now and that this type

of legislation is more difficult of application in Quebec than in provinces where agriculture is a highly specialized industry.
Mr. Minister, we cannot accept to see the Canadian government hesitate this way to give assistance to the farmers of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, in such distressing circumstances, when we know that they have already helped people of various classes, in Canada as well as abroad.
Is it necessary to remind you, Mr. Minister, that since 1962, for instance, Canada has given assistance to people from the following countries, for the following disasters:
Countries	Disasters
India-Ceylon	Tidal wave
South Viet Nam	Civil war
Cyprus	Civil war
West Pakistan	Cyclone
British Malaya	Civil war
British West Indies	Cyclone
The Caribbean Islands	Cyclone
Brazil	Famine
Barbados	Epidemic
Yugoslavia	Earthquake
Mr. Chairman, I do not see what assistance we can afford a country entangled in a civil war. I could go on citing instances where Canada helped other countries which had been plagued with calamities.
We should rejoice at the fact that Canada could assist those needy people, but we should also admit that we must impress upon the cabinet that a favourable decision be taken as soon as possible, in order that assistance be granted the farmers in the Saguenay-Lake St. John district who are seeking government help in this brief.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this brief is most complete, since it analyses all the events which happened in 1964, together with the losses incurred by the farmers in the said district. It is well drafted and well presented, and I believe that after the ministers have taken cognizance of it, they should act immediately.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) who is present here will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, so the government will take into consideration the possibility and the necessity of assisting the Saguenay-Lake St. John district. The brief also suggests that the government should assist those farmers to the extent of $12.11 per acre. In my opinion, this is not an arbitrary amount; that figure was established after lengthy studies, as will be seen. This brief is objective; it was prepared carefully, and the government should take action on it.


Mr. Beer:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
20220-823i
Interim Supply


Marcel Lessard: Certainly.


Bruce Silas Beer: Is the hon. member suggesting there has been some reluctance on the part of the federal government to assist and is he aware that when assistance is required in these distressed areas the initiative has to be taken by the province?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of that, but if the hon. member had been here at the beginning when I was reading the letter he would have noticed that this was done. A brief was addressed to Hon. Mr. Courcy of Quebec and was forwarded to Ottawa by the minister of agriculture of Quebec. An answer was sent by the federal Minister of Agriculture to Hon. Alcide Courcy and in that letter the minister was apparently quite reluctant to assist in that case. I do not know why, because it seems to me that this is the first time we have had a really good case to present. We have always been told in the past to put our case clearly. I think this is the clearest case we can put before the government for the purpose of asking for some sort of assistance to agriculture in the Saguenay district.

Mr. Chairman, that was the point which I wanted to raise about agriculture, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture will bring the matter to the attention of ministers concerned. At any rate, I intend to meet the ministers concerned, because I am convinced that they must do something. In the past various Canadian areas have been helped and I feel that farmers of the Saguenay area are as entitled as any other group to some federal assistance.
I admit that a request for assistance must be made by the provincial government. However, this request was made, and I hope that the federal government will act upon it.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with another matter and I am glad to see that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) is in his seat. It is the famous matter of the designated areas. I wonder if it has become an obsession on my part, but in the last two years I think I have been the first to make representations to the minister for my town and my area to be recognized as designated areas so that they may take advantage of the benefits provided by the legislation. 1 admit that those benefits have not been necessarily useful to other areas, as, for instance, the Chicoutimi, Port Alfred and other surrounding regions, which were chosen as designated areas and where very few industries have come to settle.

Interim Supply
It seems that the benefits have not been quite good enough to attract industries.
On the other hand, the St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville area was selected as a designated area. Since it is almost in the outskirts of Montreal, this area was in a better position to attract industries which could profit by the economic advantages. In addition to the attraction of the Montreal area market there was also that of the tax abatements, which was most interesting for the industries going into that area, and more particularly into St. Jean, Valleyfield and Beauharnois.
On several occasions the minister stated that consideration was being given to the question of designated areas, that it was realized that the first criteria were not necessarily the best, but that it was probably the best that had come to mind at that time.
I agree with him that the task of establishing criteria taking into account all the objectives and all the problems is not the easiest thing to do, but I do want to say to the minister that he cannot split the Saguenay-Lake St. John area into separate sectors, because it is a state within a state, if you wish, or a province within a province, due to its remoteness from large centres. In fact, we have to go 150 miles through the woods before we reach any large centre.
The area is economically isolated, but highly developed. Its development has been fantastic in the last few years, but at this time it requires very special attention on the part of both provincial and federal authorities.
When the minister decides on the criteria to designate those new areas, I think that he will have to make allowance for the particular circumstances that exist in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. The area is a closed economic unit and you cannot isolate a sector to help it without giving rise to some discrimination in the area.
I hope that the minister will designate the whole Saguenay-Lake St. John area, with very special points, so that the economic handicap due to our remoteness from large centres might be offset by tax benefits which will induce business firms to come and develop this beautiful area where I live and which I have the pleasure of representing.
Mr. Chairman, at the present time there are major business concerns in the Saguenay area: paper, aluminum; there is reasonably good agriculture, in the years when weather permits. But in my opinion, we must make an effort in order to avoid a repetition in the

Saguenay area of the experience which took place in the Gaspe peninsula.
Recently I met someone who works on the Gaspe peninsula development project and who told me that it was very difficult because in this area there has been an exodus of qualified personnel due to the fact that for too long that depressing situation was allowed to go on. The majority of those who, in their sphere and in their area, might have made a good contribution as economic qualified personnel, had to leave the Gaspe peninsula to go to Montreal, Quebec city, Ontario and even to the United States. We have witnessed, in the Gaspe peninsula, such a distressing situation that there were only young people, older people or children left there. There were very few people in their forties, having sufficient training to start economic undertakings. At the present time, that is one of the problems faced by a group of people from the province of Quebec who are attempting to give an economic impetus to the Gaspe peninsula. There is a lack of executives and also, to a certain extent, a lack of qualified people in various economic sectors, which makes the work still more difficult.
Mr. Chairman, such a situation may arise in the Saguenay area if we allow the present economic conditions to go on. In the Saguenay area, there are 250,000 people living in a territory about 100 miles long and 25 miles wide. There are large undertakings providing a more than abundant purchasing power in the area. But, at the present time, there is one thing which strikes the population and which concerns us. Let us take a typical example. In my town of Alma, the budget of the school board amounts to $3 million. There are technical schools, classical colleges; in short, we have a very good school system.
The problem at the present time is that as soon as our young people are educated, they must leave the area as they cannot be absorbed on the local market. In my opinion, this is a very bad thing as we thus lose our best people. We cannot afford to lose these young people to whose education we have contributed by our savings.
In my opinion, human capital is the primary resource of an area. It is this capital that must be developed and it is toward this end that our efforts are bent in the Saguenay area. But if we cannot give our human capital opportunities in our midst, it will have to leave and work to the advantage of other areas. We will have paid for nothing as far as the

economy of the area is concerned. In terms of the individual, there is no problem, because no matter where the citizen of Saguenay goes to make a living, if we gave him a sound education, he will bring along that good economic and social education to the community where he will live. But on the local economic level, it is a tragedy which we must put an end to, and I hope that the minister will pay very special and particular attention to the Saguenay region before it is too late.
There are some 600 to 700 engineers and technicians in the Saguenay region; there are executives in large industries; there are laboratories, such as Alcan, available to small enterprises. Alcan is prepared to assist them at all times with its own technicians. We only need a little assistance in fact, very little from the governments, in order to start the economy moving but at the present time, such assistance is not forthcoming.
I hope the minister will give very special attention to this matter, in order that the Saguenay area may know again the economic development it experienced in the past.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but support the remarks just made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), which riding is next to that of Lapointe.
The Saguenay area-the realm of Saguenay, as it is often called-is, of course, one of the most beautiful in Canada. Unfortunately, it is tremendously in need of help, from the industrial point of view, at the present time. I trust the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) will co-operate in that area to promote the establishment and the development of new industries.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) is also in his seat, besides the Minister of Industry and Defence Production, it seems to me this is the time to speak about the Canadian National Railways, which are at present endeavouring to set up an industrial unit in the municipality of Jonquiere.
It seems to me that if two ministers as qualified as the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry and Defence Production join forces so that this initiative of the Canadian National Railways materializes, we can expect great achievements that could contribute to the economic development of the whole area.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk on another question which is, I think, rather important.
I have already had the opportunity, since coming to this house, to talk of bilingualism
Interim Supply
in the C.N.R. I think that since that time there has been an improvement. I believe that the
president of this railway company is making efforts to improve the situation. I often receive many comments to the effect that this situation has improved. Of course, a radical change cannot be made overnight, but I feel that the changes have been satisfactory, and we hope that this will continue. But all those changes, we have got them because we claimed them forcefully.
The same thing happened for Air Canada. We have requested many, many times, through questions asked in this house, that Air Canada favour more bilingualism.
Moreover, it is those two large corporations, the C.N.R. and Air Canada, which invite our fellow citizens to visit the country from coast to coast. Therefore, it is desirable that Canadian citizens feel at home everywhere in this country and when they make trips by plane or train, that they may be understood in their own language.
Today I should like to insist especially on bilingualism in the R.C.M.P. But before coming to that matter, I want to say that Air Canada brought many improvements as did the C.N.R. and I think that it is in order to congratulate Air Canada for the improvements made in the field of bilingualism. There is still much to do, but nevertheless there have been improvements, following repeated requests on our part. And so, today, I would like to make the same request in respect of the R.C.M.P.
The R.C.M.P. comes under the Department of Justice. For many decades, we have had several French Canadians as ministers of justice. First, there was Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe; then, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and, after him Hon. Lionel Chevrier. We have now the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Favreau), another French Canadian.
In between those four French Canadian ministers, two English speaking ministers perfectly bilingual, held that portfolio, Hon. Mr. Fulton and Hon. Mr. Fleming.
And yet, even if there were four French-Canadian ministers and two bilingual ministers in the last decades heading the Department of Justice, the R.C.M.P. remains one of the departments where it is difficult at the present time to have bilingualism. In fact, that body cannot understand the efforts being made elsewhere and does not try in the least to establish bilingualism as it should be understood in Canada at the present time.

Interim Supply
It was found recently during the Dorion inquiry that even the R.C.M.P.'s manual was not yet bilingual. Here, in the house, parliamentary rules and forms were not bilingual but, less than a year ago we obtained a translation.
However, as far as the R.C.M.P. is concerned, questions had to be asked; in short, the situation had to be exposed before the courts in order that the people could at last realize that the R.C.M.P.'s manual used by the members of that police force was not even written or translated in French. This is pushing unilingualism a little too far.
Most lawyers acting for the R.C.M.P. are nearly always-even if the investigation in question is held in Montreal or Ottawa, as in the case of the Dorion inquiry-Toronto lawyers who do not understand one word of French, when all the witnesses and the lawyers of the other parties are French Canadians. As a matter of fact, in the case of that investigation there was only one individual who did not understand French and that was the R.C.M.P.'s lawyer.
I think that has been noted, because in the committee on privileges and elections when the question of the operation of the R.C.M.P. came up it was asked, probably for the first time, that a French Canadian lawyer represent the R.C.M.P. and try, in co-operation with that police force, to establish that summons and warrants should be drawn up in both languages and not only in English.
About this inquiry, I would like to refer to a fact deriving from a statement made in the house by Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the then minister of justice, on June 25, 1963. He said, in reply to a question I put to him, and which may be found at page 1536 of Hansard of June 25, 1963, in the right hand column:
But, for the information of the hon. member, I should like to say that when a violation occurs on parliament hill or on drives or roads falling under the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P., it is the practice to issue warrants in both languages.
This is what was stated by Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the then minister of justice.
In order to check whether this was being done, I had the opportunity to put the question to members of the R.C.M.P. who were giving evidence under oath, before the committee on privileges and elections, and I put the question after having repeated this statement from Hon. Lionel Chevrier, which I quote again:
But, for the information of the hon. member, I should like to say that when a violation occurs on parliament hill or on drives or roads falling under the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P., it is the practice to issue warrants in both languages.

I was putting the question to Constable Stamler, in charge of the warrants and summons office. I said:
Has that statement of Hon. Lionel Chevrier ever been passed on to you by some of your superiors?
Here is what he answered:

No, of course not.

In a statement made in the House of Commons in June 1963, the then minister of justice said that it was the practice of the R.C.M.P. to issue summons and warrants in both languages.
So one could expect the R.C.M.P. to be aware of that statement. But when I asked Constable Stamler:
Has that statement by Hon. Mr. Chevrier ever been passed on to you by some of your superiors?
The answer was-and this took place on March 2, 1965:

No, of course not.

And I went on to ask:
Have your superiors ever talked to you about it?
The answer was:

No.

At this stage, I must point out that I have the bilingual report at hand and that when a question is asked in French, I have the French text, whereas when the reply is given in English, I look up the English text.
When I asked Constable Stamler:
Then, it was not a rule in the R.C.M.P.?
His answer was:

The national capital commission falls into four different courts; one of the courts is the Hull court, and if the violation occurs on the Quebec side we do serve these summonses and execute the warrant in the French language.

And again, I asked:
In French only or in the two languages?
Constable Stamler answered:

In the French language if the person charged has a French name.

Thus, they use a warrant in French, but only in the province of Quebec and only if the person has a French name. Please note the other answers of that constable; continuing my questioning I asked him:
In French only or in both languages?
If the person in Hull has an English name, you serve it in English?
Constable Stamler's answer was this:

If he was charged in the province of Quebec, yes, it would be in English only.

Then, Mr. Chairman, when it became somewhat embarrassing, the chairman declared that it was out of order, that it was irrelevant to the matter in hand. Yet, the questions I had asked as to the practices of the R.C.M.P. were rather simple, namely: In what language are the warrants you serve in Ontario, and in the rest of Canada? The answer was: In English only. But whenever they have to deal with an English Canadian or a person bearing an English name in the province of Quebec, the warrant is served in English. It is in French only when the person concerned lives in the province of Quebec and bears a French name.
Then, it is in English, even in the province of Quebec, if the person bears an English name. Would you call that bilingualism? I would say it is a one-way bilingualism, with English everywhere. But, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, it seems to me it has the same rights as the other provinces especially as regards the R.C.M.P.
Mind you, the question was asked with respect to a statement made by the minister of justice of the day, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who said that when it dealt with an offence committed on parliament hill or a federal driveway, the warrant should be issued in both languages. Now, this took place at the airport on federal government property, and the warrant could have been served to me in both languages.
That is why the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) asked Constable Stamler, in English, the following question:

Are you aware of any regulation or law or procedure which demands that the summons or warrant, which is at issue here, be in the French language in the province of Ontario?
A. No. It is my understanding it has to be in the English language only.
Interim Supply

Then, what was the meaning of the statement made by Hon. Lionel Chevrier? What was the meaning of the statements of the then minister of justice who was responsible for the R.C.M.P.? Statements are made in the house just to show off in front of the people in the galleries, and back at the office they give opposite instructions. We should know what happens in the Department of Justice, whether they tell one thing to members in the house and the contrary to members of the R.C.M.P.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the house that there was surprising and disappointing things in that respect. I draw your attention to the fact that even in the committee, those who supported bilingualism within the R.C.M.P. were not French Canadians of the province of Quebec.
Allow me to quote, for instance, a sentence of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien):
It is in the interest of the committee to And out about Mr. Gregoire's background, because he knew full well that he had no right to insist on a bilingual warrant for his arrest, because the warrant for arrest is an order given by the court to an officer of that court, to execute an act recognized by law.
According to him I had no right to insist on a French warrant.
A little further on he states:
-because he knew full well that he had no right to insist on a bilingual warrant for his arrest, because the warrant for arrest is an order given by the court to an officer of that court. So, it is to prove that Mr. Gregoire, obviously, had absolutely no reason to bring up the question of privilege, inasmuch as he knew that the warrant for arrest was not addressed to him and that he had no right to insist that it be in the two languages.
Mr. Chairman, that was the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche speaking. And a little later he asked this question:
Did you know that legal proceedings in Ontario courts are conducted in English?
Mr. Chairman, he did not say that it was on federal territory, in fact at the airport, and that all the proceedings had been instituted by the R.C.M.P. and a federal court, under a federal act, and that even the fine, when paid, went to the federal treasury. And he claims that I do not have the right to insist on a warrant made out in both French and English. There is a French Canadian who disowns his own people.
Did you know that legal proceedings in Ontario courts are conducted in English?

Interim Supply
Instead of standing up for the French language, he is going to crawl on all fours.
Another one, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), said:
You know perfectly well that we do not have to comment here on the Justification, or lack of justification, of what I am about to say, but you know very well that Ontario courts are exclusively English speaking.
So the hon. member for St. Denis is another man who is not ashamed to betray his mother tongue.
And a little further on he said this:
That is no conclusion: the fact of the matter is that the witness, at that moment, was perfectly aware that no French version could be made available to him.
I replied to him:
As far as that goes, I have a statement to the contrary, made by the Hon. Lionel Chevrier.
Those who, at that time, raised the strongest protests were not French speaking but English speaking members, fully aware of fair play. Among others, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) had this to say:

I know that Mr. Gregoire gets under everyone's skin at times and everyone likes to have a go at him, but he is entitled to the same courtesy which is extended to all witnesses appearing before a committee of this kind. This type of slurring question should not be put to him.

He was speaking to French Canadian members and a little further on he said this:

This committee has conducted a number of investigations, and I like to think that we observe the same standard all the time no matter who the witnesses are or what parties they belong to.

Mr. Chairman, I think that should suffice to show what was the atmosphere in that committee. French Canadians were not the ones who sought to have their language rights recognized. That is obvious. In fact, when a Liberal member stands up in the house to defend the rights of bilingualism, no one on this side blames him for it. On the contrary, we congratulate him. When the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) voted against the adoption of the union jack as a Canadian flag we did not criticize him. On the contrary, I personally congratulated him publicly on the French television network of the C.B.C.
However, when members on this side get up to defend the rights of French Canadians in Canada within the federal administra-

tion, they do not get the same treatment. There is, for instance, the hon. member for Lotbiniere who uses rather vulgar language. Among other things he said that it broke his teeth when he took it in, to which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) replied that that was unparliamentary language.
Instead of supporting the demands made in the house, they use vulgar language and play politics, like the hon. member for Lotbiniere the other day and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche in the privileges and elections committee, to prevent recognition of the rights of French Canadians.
No wonder the committee reached the present conclusion. It would have been worse, but someone told the committee to go easy on the member for Lapointe to prevent his getting a lot of publicity. Consequently, the report was changed, and it was ruled that there had been no breach of privilege. The standing committee on privileges and elections claimed that there was no breach of privilege from the point of view of language rights. One must remember that this committee was made up mostly of French Canadians. If the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) speak the same way as the hon. members for St. Maurice-Lafleche and St. Denis, it is not surprising that this committee ruled that there was no breach of privilege. On the other hand, these members claim that they are the serious defenders of the rights of French Canadians.


An hon. Member:: They are milksops.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I heard someone say: "They are milksops". I think the hon. member is right. A while ago I quoted from the testimony of Constable Stamler respecting the statement made by Hon. Lionel Chevrier.
I directed the same question to Constable Delisle, in order to find out if he was aware of that statement, and I got the same answer. That matter was never mentioned to the R.C.M.P.
When I attempted to put the same question to the chief of those two constables, Sergeant Rachel, the question was ruled out of order. It was obviously the wrong track and it looked bad for the Liberal Minister of Justice to have made a statement concerning the R.C.M.P. without this force being aware of it.

At that point the questions were ruled out of order because the mistakes became
evident.
When I asked the constable what was the general practice, he answered that it was unusual for the R.C.M.P. to translate the warrants into French. It was done in my case to try to avoid unfavourable publicity. What was done in point of fact? A French speaking constable gave me a sight translation of a document written in English only. Was this an official act? To my mind there was nothing official about it. This is compromise bilingualism.
Mr. Chairman, the matter of bilingualism in the R.C.M.P. has been raised by other people. I hope that the chief commissioner, Mr. McClelland, instead of sulking and getting angry will do rather like other chairmen of crown corporations, that is, that he will try to understand what we are asking for. As a matter of fact, Messrs. Donald Gordon and Gordon McGregor have understood.
Instead of sulking and losing his temper, the chief commissioner should make changes within the R.C.M.P., hire bilingual officers, translators and have the warrants to be used printed in both languages.
Bilingualism should exist within the R.C.M.P. as elsewhere. Instead of getting angry, the chief commissioner should do as others have done. We would then be happy to congratulate him on the improvement he will have brought about within the R.C.M.P.
If he merely gets annoyed then it will rest with us to renew our attempt and to insist on bilingual personnel within the R.C.M.P.
I remember asking the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last year whether he would make sure that bilingual constables be in attendance on parliament hill for the benefit of the tourists who visit parliament. We know that some come from the province of Quebec, as well as from other parts of Canada, and most of the time unilingual constables, who speak English only, are in attendance on parliament hill. And yet, if there is a place where bilingualism should be enforced, it is certainly on parliament hill but some are satisfied with unilingual constables.
I will ask that changes be made and that bilingual constables be hired to help the tourists. It seems to me that very little is done in this respect. Are the constables chosen by the R.C.M.P. commissioner? In any case, I feel that conditions within the R.C.M.P. should be improved, in short that it should be made into a bilingual police force. But R.C.M.P.
Interim. Supply
right now, it is a unilingual force and we cannot tolerate that situation.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few comments I wanted to make.
It will probably be said that no privilege was violated. Personally, I feel that a privilege much more important than parliamentary immunity was violated, that of a Canadian citizen, not only a member of parliament, to make himself understood in his own language, to have forms, documents, warrants in his own language or in both languages, when he deals with crown corporations, a federal department or the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Nesbiii:: There is one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Industry. Unfortunately he is not in his place at the moment.


George James McIlraith: He will be here in a moment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear he will be back. First, then, I might congratulate my hon. friend from Wellington South on his able presentation of the plight in which Canadian manufacturers of automobile parts find themselves. He covered the ground thoroughly and I do not wish to detain the committee at this point by spending a great deal of time on this subject. The hon. member for Port Arthur addressed an admonition to other members of the committee a few minutes ago, advising them what they should or should not do during this particular debate, and I agree with him that this session has gone on for a long time and that if members could restrain themselves when making speeches, it might be a good thing. This is all very well, but perhaps the hon. member for Port Arthur is not faced with a situation where one of his large communities is threatened with the disappearance of half its employment as a result of certain policies being followed by the government. Since, like other hon. members, I was sent here by the electors of my riding to represent them I feel it is my duty to speak up at the present time and express the concern which is felt in those centres.
My hon. friend from Wellington South has put very well indeed the case for Canadian owned companies who manufacture automobile parts. In the course of his speech the minister shook his head at one point as if to express disagreement with the remarks which were being made by my hon. friend. Those remarks went to the crux of the whole problem, that is, to the terms of what is sometimes known as the mark II Drury plan, in

Interim Supply
particular to the term which suggests that the content of Canadian cars, if they are sold in Canada, must remain at a certain dollar level. In the original agreement it was stated that the content of the cars sold in Canada must remain at a certain percentage with regard to the base year. The hon. member for Wellington South pointed out that if in the base year, 1964, the Canadian content of $100 million worth of cars sold in Canada is $60 million, then if the company made $200 million worth of cars the Canadian content, being on a 60 per cent basis, must amount to $120 million. But under the present agreement known as the mark II Drury agreement, this is not the case at all. It would likely remain at $60 million which is the figure used, for example's sake, in the base year.
At this point the minister shook his head, as if this was not the term in the agreement with the United States. I should be obliged if the minister would clarify this situation and say whether or not under the new plan this amount of Canadian content is still on a percentage basis. I am sure this would help clear up the problem for a great many of us who are concerned about it. On the other hand, if this should not be the case, the minister could perhaps indicate that there would be further negotiations on this subject with the United States government before the agreement is approved by congress. We know, of course, that once it has been approved by congress it cannot be changed without notice until some time in the future. So perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not Canadian content is on a percentage basis or whether it is based on the dollar value during the past year.
In other words, if company A increases its sales from, shall we say, $100 million in 1964 to $200 million next year would the Canadian content which, let us say, was $60 million in 1964, have to increase to $120 million or would it remain at $60 million? An answer to this point would certainly help clarify the matter.
It has been indicated by certain sources of information available to me that the government has received assurances from the principal automobile manufacturers in Canada that the dollar value of Canadian content would be increased. That is fine. If this is the case it would go far to solving the problem to which attention was drawn by my hon. friend from Wellington South and to which a number of us on this side may have to refer. On the other hand, if the minister

could give us an assurance at this point, and clarify the situation, there might be no need for continued discussion, and I invite the hon. gentleman to do so.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: First, with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Wellington South, namely that the government entered into this arrangement with the United States under the power granted to it to modify tariffs rather than through the legislative process. This is what has been done, but at the same time it has been stated in the house both by the Prime Minister and by myself that the government would welcome the opportunity for a full debate on this particular topic as soon as the timetable allows.
I myself look forward with anticipation to such a debate because in my view this agreement does hold out very substantial advantages for the manufacturing industry in Canada. I will be glad of the opportunity to set out at some length the advantages and the benefits which are expected to flow from it. Unfortunately, as the house knows, we have been preoccupied for a long period of time with a number of high priority items and we have not been able to do all we would have wished. This is one of the things I would like to see done and I hope an opportunity will present itself fairly early in the new session.
As far as Canadian content is concerned, I think there is some misconception about the significance of the previous references to percentage of Canadian content and the current references to dollar values in the absolute. Let me put it another way. In the arrangements which antedated the provision for stripped engine transmission plants, motor manufacturers in Canada could import into this country free of duty a number of items specified in the tariff, provided they achieved a commonwealth content, a certain percentage depending on their volume of production. This means that the total expenditure in the commonwealth in respect of a given car had to be a percentage of the total cost of the car, and if a manufacturer were able to achieve this-in large operations a 60 per cent figure-he would then have the right to import certain items listed in the tariff duty free.
Under the present plan, which contemplates duty free entry of original equipment and cars into the United States from Canada, Canadian motor car manufacturers-all of them, not merely the three mentioned by the hon. member for Wellington South-will have to do a number of things, the result of which

will be in the aggregate an increase in the production in Canada and an increase in over-all automotive activity here. Within the next three years this will mean an increase of about one third, or 30 per cent over the 1964 level.
This will be achieved by having the motorcar manufacturers undertake, in respect of cars that they will produce in Canada for the domestic market to continue to incorporate in those cars Canadian added value in an amount not less than that for the base year, or in other words a floor. In addition to that, they will have to undertake to incorporate in all cars manufactured for the Canadian market Canadian added value to the extent of 60 per cent of the value of the increased sales to the Canadian market. In addition to that, they will undertake individually to achieve a specified figure, which is different for each firm, in respect of additional Canadian production. This has reference to the three levels, one superimposed on another. It is as a result of this that manufacturers in Canada will increase by one third the value of automotive manufacturing in Canada in the next three years.
We are persuaded, as I think all automotive industry people are, that this plan will result in a substantial increase in activity in the whole automotive field. There are undoubtedly going to be some changes both in technique of production and, in some instances, the location of production. The gross result will be a substantial increase.
My department is very concerned to see that where changes take place they take place in as orderly a fashion as possible, and we are paying special attention to those who are fearful of severe dislocation. We are also taking steps to see that what assistance the federal government is able to give is given in order to make the transition easier for all.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for what certainly sounded like a very clear and precise explanation of some of the problems that have been worrying a great many of us in this house. Naturally I will want to examine his remarks very carefully, because of their technical nature. However, I understood him to state that in respect of the increase in the number of cars produced by manufacturers for sale in Canada, that the Canadian content would remain at the fixed 60 per cent figure.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. What I did say was that the manufacturer obligated himself to increase
20220-824J
Interim, Supply
production in Canada to the extent of 60 per cent of the increase in domestic sales. Let us assume that we have a floor of $100 million in 1964. If domestic sales increase from that figure to $150 million, then motor car manufacturers have to increase Canadian domestic production by 60 per cent of $50 million, representing an additional production of $30 million. In addition to that, there is another item which is a fraction of a global sum, parcelled out among individual manufacturers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask the minister one brief question. If there is an increase in the number of cars manufactured in Canada, and there will be as our economy grows, will the Canadian content of a car manufactured for sale in Canada remain at the fixed percentage which existed during the base year, 1963-64?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not necessarily, no. I am trying to make it clear that the obligation on the part of motor car manufacturers is to increase automotive production in Canada. This does not mean that they must increase this production by doing more of exactly the same thing they were doing in 1964. If we are going to rationalize our production and achieve greater efficiency, we must specialize. This means that the number of items which hitherto have been manufactured in Canada only for the limited domestic market will have to be stepped up in volume for export. There probably will be a smaller range of items which will be increased in production volume both in respect of domestic and export consumption. But unless the manufacturer is allowed some freedom to export that increase in production it will not be possible for us to increase our efficiency.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I thought we could clarify this question quite easily, but I find that I must ask one more question. I will undertake to ask that one, and no more, at this time. Will the total Canadian content of cars manufactured in Canada for sale in Canada remain at the same percentage which existed during the base year? In other words, if company A manufactured $100 million worth of cars in 1963-64 for sale in Canada and the Canadian content was 60 per cent including assembly, overhead and other associated costs, and it increased its production to $200 million worth of Canadian cars for sale in Canada, would the Canadian content remain at 60 per cent, amounting to $120 million?

Interim Supply


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I should like to stay away from the word "content" if I may. I think it is the cause of much of the confusion. Let me put the situation to you in another way. I will use hypothetical figures. Domestic sales in Canada in 1964 amounted to $100 million. The Canadian automotive production in 1964 would be $60 million, is that correct? We will assume hypothetically that in the next three years domestic sales will go from $100 million to $120 million. In this same period domestic production will go from the $60 million floor which was mentioned, based on 60 per cent content, to $72 million if we take 60 per cent of $20 million which is $12 million and add that to the $60 million. There will also be an additional figure, and here I get into difficulties. However, without disclosing precisely what the figure is it will be of the order of $250 million. So you compare $100 million of domestic sales and $60 million of Canadian production against $120 million of domestic sales and approximately $300 million of domestic production at the end of the three year period.
You can convert those figures into content if you like but it just has no meaning. I have used an actual figure as against a hypothetical $100 million, so it is a little confusing; but let me say this. It is quite clear that under the plan domestic production is going to rise more rapidly than the increase in domestic sales. It can be converted into content, of course, but one wants to get away from the word "content". The essential fact is that domestic production is going to increase more rapidly than domestic sales.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister for his explanation. As I understand it at the moment, certainly his explanation seems pretty good, but I will reserve the right to examine it very carefully because the subject is very complex.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a matter that is of considerable concern to practically every gold mining community in Canada. The concern is brought about by not one but two policies of the present government, their policy toward the gold mining industry as a whole and their policy with regard to the Canadian exchange fund.
We are all aware that for the past 30 years the price of gold has been tied to a figure of $35 per ounce in United States dollars, but possibly we are not all aware that during the last 25 years the number of operating

gold mines in Canada has dropped from 254 to 42 at present and that the number of miners employed in the industry has dropped since 1941 from 32,551 to 13,798 as of late 1964. I should like members of the committee to realize for a moment just what this means. In the first place, it means that there are 212 mines which are no longer buying timber, steel, machinery, hoists, cable, blasting powder, fuses and the thousands of other things that a gold mine uses. They are no longer paying taxes or wages. It means that some 18,753 jobs have been lost in this industry. At an average of $5,000 a year, this amounts to almost $100 million. In that regard one must realize that each one of these jobs means a breadwinner and householder. It means that families have been uprooted all across the country. It means that millions of dollars have been paid out of the unemployment insurance fund to people who have lost their jobs in this industry. Furthermore, it means that many thousands of jobs have been lost indirectly in the manufacturing industry, the consumer goods industry and in the stores and service establishments that serve these communities.
There is something else I think we should realize. These jobs have been lost in the very field that is of the greatest concern to this country today because these are unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in a field where automation is becoming an increasing problem. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this situation has meant that the development of the north country has been held back because of this policy, and certainly we have had an example of this in Timmins in the last year. When Texas Gulf made their big strike last year it stimulated the search for minerals. As a result not only were jobs provided in the search itself but since that time two more properties have been found and a third one is to be announced shortly, I am told. All this has happened just because a new mine opened which stimulated the search for minerals, and this will have a great effect on the eoonomy of the country as a whole.
I think we should all realize that the only way the gold mining industry can be revived is by an increase in the price of gold. But the only policy that this government and the previous government have applied to the problem has been that set forth in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. This policy has been in effect for some 17 of the last 24 years to which I have referred. It has not reversed the trend. In fact, I would say it has only slowed it down very slightly and

if it is carried on in its present form I would say on the basis of the figures I have given it can only be classed as a sort of futile old age pension to a dying industry.
In my view the government, as I hope to point out, has been assisting in the death of the industry by strangulation, and I would say this is just as disastrous to the economy of the country as floods, forest fires or drought. The process is slow and insidious and is not as dramatic, with the result that the situation does not receive the same attention. Furthermore, I would say that the onus is on the government because not only the gold mining industry but the whole economy will be affected. I am not suggesting for one moment that the government can raise the price of gold unilaterally; that would be a ridiculous assumption. But there are ways in which the government can help and it is not making use of them at the present time.
This brings me to the second point I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the policy of the government toward the Canadian exchange fund. As of November, 1964 Canada kept only 35 per cent of its exchange fund in gold, some $1,007 million, and 65 per cent in American dollars or some $1,736 million. I should like to compare this situation with that of some of the other western countries. For example, Germany keeps 63 per cent of its exchange fund in gold, Belgium 78 per cent, France 82 per cent, Great Britain 83 per cent, the Netherlands 84 per cent, Switzerland 89 per cent and the United States of America 99 per cent.
Two questions come to mind. Why does the United States keep 99 per cent of its exchange fund in gold and at the same time ask Canada to keep only 35 per cent of its exchange fund in gold? The second question is even more important. Why does Canada agree? This question was asked last December of the governor of the Bank of Canada and his reply raised two interesting points. First of all, it proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the responsibility rests solely with the Minister of Finance. I should like to quote from this letter from the governor to prove this. He said:
I should perhaps begin by pointing out that the exchange fund account is the property of the government of Canada and not the Bank of Canada, and it is the Minister of Finance who decides in what form the assets of the account should be held.
Then he goes on to give the reason they are doing this. I would say, Mr. Chairman, it is a rather lame reason. I quote:
Interim Supply
Turning to your question, 1 suppose that the principle reason why many countries, including Canada, hold a substantial proportion of their external reserves in the form of foreign exchange rather than gold is the sacrifice of interest involved in holding gold. Since the exchange fund was activated in 1939, its income from investment in U.S. treasury bills and other short term securities of the U.S. government has amounted to approximately $410 million-revenue that would have been foregone if the fund had been invested entirely in gold.
I should like to ask just what kind of terms we have been getting. Let us look at the other side of the coin. As I think I pointed out, this policy has been killing our gold mining industry by a process of slow strangulation. Through the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, this government and previous governments have paid out in subsidies almost as much as they have received in interest. They have lost millions in production. They have lost millions of dollars from the unemployment insurance fund and yet, to say the very least, this has not reversed the trend. This has not been a solution to this problem.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is an even greater danger I should like to deal with for the benefit of the committee today. If the international monetary fund were to meet this week end or tomorrow-this could very well happen-and to decide that they would double the price of gold in relation to the par value of all currencies, this is what we might look forward to. I should like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that all hon. members might watch what happens in London next Tuesday, because Britain may be forced to do exactly the thing that I am suggesting should be done by the international monetary fund for all countries, and not one at a time, which creates chaotic conditions. If this happens, and it could well happen, Canada would stand to lose overnight $1,736 million. Overnight, we would lose 12 times the annual production of gold in this country. Overnight we would lose four times the amount of interest we have collected since 1939. If the price trebled, which is what many gold experts feel is the proper value relationship of gold to the dollar today, you would have to double those figures again.
Now, how great is this danger, Mr. Chairman? I should like to point out that since 1950 the United States reserves of gold have dropped from $24 billion to some $15 billion. Over the same period, United States short term liabilities have increased from $7.6 billion to some $26 billion. What the United States is doing at the present time is maintaining a precarious position by raising their

Interim Supply
interest rates in this regard. In other words, they are saying to other countries: If you do not cash my cheque I will pay you a bonus, because I have not the money in the bank to cover it. I say that what is happening at the moment is merely postponing that day of reckoning. I ask the government, and particularly the Minister of Finance, if we can take that chance in this country at this time?
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that many people hold different views from the one I am expressing today. These are the views of the men in the gold mining communities across Canada today. I had occasion to send out a brief along these lines to every gold mining community in Canada from Quebec in the east right through to the Northwest Territories. Most of them have replied in a favourable vein. I should like to read into the record the most recent letter, one I received this morning from the corporation of the township of Red Lake, Ontario. I quote:
Dear Sir:
Following receipt of your letter and enclosed brief relative to the present gold situation and the policy of the federal government with respect to the exchange fund, members of council of this township exchanged views with various mine managers, mine officials, with the Red Lake district chamber of commerce and local business leaders. As a result of such discussion and study, we are able to enclose a resolution endorsing the brief which we attach hereto.
We are forwarding a copy of this letter and resolution to our member of parliament, Hon. Wm. Benidickson, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys for the minister's information.
Enclosed is a copy of the resolution moved by J. L. McEwen and seconded by Joseph Nowell, and I quote:
That the council of the township of Red Lake endorse a brief relative to the present gold situation and the policy of the federal government with respect to the exchange fund, as submitted by Mr. Murdo Martin, M.F.; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Wm. M. Benidickson, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since I do not wish to hold up the committee too long, I should like to read from this brief forwarded to these gold mining communities as to the reason we are petitioning the Minister of Finance to take immediate steps to convert our exchange fund into gold. This will secure our reserves and at the same time will help hasten an increase in the price of gold with the following beneficial results to Canada:
(1)	It will probably double the life of the present operating gold mines plus the reopening of

many of the mines which have had to close down.
(2)	It will stimulate the search for, and the opening up of new gold mines in both known gold areas and new ones, thus reversing the trend of the last 25 years.
(3)	It would create thousands of new jobs in the very sector of our economy where the need is greatest among semi-skilled and unskilled workers. As we know from experience, these workers are the first to lose their jobs and the hardest to retrain and be reabsorbed as automation takes over.
(4)	Gold is found in the regions of Canada most in need of opening and developing. Gold mining in the past has been an impetus to other mineral development and this could once more be the case.
(5)	The dynamic of new gold mines opening would once more, as in the past, greatly stimulate other base metal development, with the resulting benefits to manufacturing and the economy as a whole.
(6)	It would save the government its present expenditure in E.G.M.A. This measure, taken originally as a temporary measure to meet a temporary situation, has now some 17 years after become a sort of necessary evil. But a continuous government dole or handout is lust as much a blight on an industry as continuous welfare is to a family. It destroys their pride and outlook: it makes them become inward instead of outward looking and culminates in having a depressing effect on the industry, the community and the region.
(7)	The over-all improvement to the government itself will be remarkable. On the one hand, it will greatly increase revenue through the creation of new jobs and new industries, as well as stimulating and prolonging the life of present ones. On the other hand it will cut down on the present drain in such fields as welfare, unemployment Insurance and E.G.M.A. This would have a net benefit of millions of dollars annually to the federal treasury.
In closing, I should like to say that the onus is clearly on the Minister of Finance and on the government. I think I have proven that it is his responsibility and his duty to take the necessary action in this field. I would be interested in hearing his comments on this particular problem.


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, Canada is entering a period in which, more than ever before, the decisions concerning the country as a whole must be taken both by the federal and provincial governments. To achieve this goal, we have to take a new look at the whole Canadian system and the way it is operating now. Economic conditions, in the present context, are surely different from what they were a century ago.
Within the next few years we shall have to come up with bold solutions. We shall have to show some imagination when applying

remedies to the present system. Perhaps it will need an overhaul.
Prior to the war of 1939-45, the sharing was proportionate to revenues among the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
During the last war the federal government took over the fields of taxation, thereby destroying provincial autonomy. Moreover, the federal government widened its range in the area of direct and indirect taxes, while not forgetting to increase the rates, apparently in order to fulfil its obligations.
~ After the war the needs of the provinces really came to the fore, because after being deprived of their properties, they found themselves in a deplorable financial situation. In the last few years, with the help of federal-provincial conferences, attempts have been made to reach a compromise. Since the federal government is unwilling to hand over to the provinces the fields of taxation it monopolized during the war, federal-provincial conferences always seem doomed to failure.
That is why today more than ever, since the provinces have priority needs, they insist on being treated fairly by the central government.
As a member from the province of Quebec I say that Quebec has priority needs.
Quebec needs its sources of income in order to develop its natural resources at a quick pace and to enable private enterprise to increase its production.
In public services there are municipalities, school boards, education, public health, social welfare and roads departments.
They say that in Quebec education will cost about $1 billion in 1967 in the field of health; investments will reach more than $30 million before 1967.
Mr. Chairman, so that a province can develop, meet its responsibilities, play its part, the central government must give back to the provinces their taxation rights.
After the second world war the Canadian economy had to adjust to new conditions. An economic recession had to be avoided. Our economy also had to be given new direction in order to ensure stability and minimize inflation. The provinces understood that situation. In short, the federal government had to give our post-war economy the means of providing Canadians with a standard of living to which they were entitled.
It was agreed that fiscal agreements with the provinces were to be temporary. The war is over and a state of emergency no
Interim Supply
longer exists. The economic situation is not the same as existed in 1950. The provinces have now assumed a priority role, and I mentioned those needs a while ago. Only the provinces can control our economic development, and ensure the progress and expansion of our industry. Therefore, it is obvious that the provinces have a responsibility in the economic development of their territory.
It has been recognized since confederation that the provinces wanted their jurisdiction to be respected. Quebec, among others, never missed a chance to let the federal government know about that. Today more than ever, the provinces maintain the same attitude.
Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec is not a province like the others. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the province of Quebec are French Canadians. Within the whole of Canada, they are nevertheless a minority, an important minority established in this country for centuries, and this gives it particular rights and duties.
We demand that its traditions and characteristics be protected and maintained because they are a fundamental right. Quebec is the guardian of the French language and culture. That is why we often say that it is the mother country of all French speaking people in America. I will go even further and state that the city of Quebec which I have the honour to represent here is the cradle of French civilization in North America.
Canada, of which Quebec is a province, has a federal government which guarantees, through the British North America Act, the rights of French Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, for the past two or three years principles which were held to be sacred in the past are open to discussion not only in Quebec but throughout Canada and our party is not alien to the present turmoil.
Most politicians cannot wait to discuss the repatriation of the constitution.
For a strong Quebec the amendment to the constitution will have to include four points:
First, control over credit.
Second, control over imports and exports.
Third, control over immigration.
Fourth, return of taxation powers. Control over credit by the establishment of the bank of Quebec. The role of that bank will be:
1. To lend "new credit without interest" by means of scrip and paper currency:
(a) to the various government departments to finance public capital;

Interim Supply
(b) to private financial institutions, if necessary, to finance private capital of individuals and firms.
2.	To require, in a scientific way, reimbursement of loans made to the various government departments or to private institutions according to the physical depreciation rate of production financed by the loan.
3.	To distribute to consumers, unconditionally their free share of social revenue by means of bonuses, family allowances, school and university allowances, pensions, dividends and compensated discount, under the immediate authority of the national credit commission.
The control of foreign trade is the second point we feel should be considered when amending the constitution. And to explain the reasons why we ask that Quebec be given control over its exports and imports, it is important first of all to agree on some principles.
First, the object of the economic order is to satisfy the consumers, nothing else.
Second, the object of industrial activities is to supply consumers with goods and services, and not work or jobs.
Third, the object of trade exchanges between two countries or of international trade is to supply the importing country with goods it cannot produce or cannot produce easily. In return, the importing country wants to export its excess goods to those who need them.
However, at the present time we are forced to the conclusion that the direct exchange of available surpluses is no longer a rule of international trade. Today export trade is carried on mainly for the purpose of keeping our plants and factories producing, and thereby sustaining employment. Lord Kynes very aptly described the situation when he said that the purpose of international trade is to export unemployment.
And that is why our views in the matter are definitely in line with Social Credit principles. In developed countries, such as ours, the control of production is such that enough production is possible to ensure to everyone a comfortable living. The production is there. It is merely a matter of distributing it properly.
The third point we deal with is the control of our immigration. As the federal government seems to realize more and more the unfairness of its immigration policy and seems to be willing to improve things in this department which allows criminals to take refuge in Canada, and as Quebec, under the pressure of the opposition, just made a timid first step in that field, it is important to point out that our policy is not irrelevant to this renewal.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


George James McIlraith: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, could we continue for a few minutes, since there will be an opportunity for making further remarks on the supplementary estimates tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think we have another speaker on this subject, and I wonder whether we could not carry on the consideration of interim supply tomorrow and take up supplementary estimates the day after tomorrow.

Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 1, 19S5