1965-03-17

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the house rose last evening there was a question of privilege under consideration, and in view of the short day today I would like to suggest that for the better conduct and quicker dispatch of business we proceed with the ordinary business before the house and then immediately afterward take up the question of privilege. I would need the consent of the house for this course.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TABLING OF LETTER RESPECTING ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.

Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the answer given yesterday to the request made by the hon. member for Quebec East I wish to table the correspondence referred to.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING CONTRACTING-OUT ARRANGEMENTS

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table replies received from the provincial premiers to my letter of August 15, 1964 on the opting-out arrangements, as requested by the hon. member for Queens.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: May I
ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree to these letters being printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have no objection to the letters appearing as an appendix to Hansard, and I would be prepared to take the same course with respect to the other replies as they come in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of letters above referred to, see Appendix Af.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What were the capital expenditures of the federal government for each of its departments for each fiscal year since 1953 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
2.	What were the capital expenditures of each of the crown corporations for each fiscal year since 1953 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
3.	What were the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways for each fiscal year since 1953 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
4.	What is the number and total amount of the loans granted and in force by the Farm Credit Corporation (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
5.	What was the annual amount, since 1945, of allowances paid to veterans (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
6.	What is the total amount of loans outstanding and of the loans presently guaranteed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
7.	What was the amount paid annually, since 1945 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces, by the federal government (i) for family allowances (ii) for old age security (iii) for old age assistance (iv) for blind persons allowances (v) for disabled persons allowances (vi) for unemployment assistance (vii) for aid to fitness and amateur sport (viii) as subsidies and loans granted to hospitals (ix) as health grants and subsidies?
8.	What amounts were collected annually since 1945 (a) in the province of Quebc (b) in the other provinces, by the federal government (i) as direct taxes (A) individual income tax (B) corporation income tax (C) estate tax (ii) as sales tax of all kinds (iii) as customs and excise duties collected at ports of entry?
9.	What was the tonnage and the value of merchandise entering Canada through sea ports and airports each fiscal year since 1953 (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the other provinces?
10.	Each fiscal year since 1953, what was the tonnage and value of (a) raw materials (b) partly manufactured materials (c) fully manufactured materials exported by Canada (i) originating in the province of Quebec (ii) in other provinces (A) through maritime terminals (B) through air terminals (C) by rail (D) by truck?

Questions


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Parts 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. It is not possible to answer in full questions of this kind. Even to provide gross estimates of the data requested would require many months of work on the part of officials who are experts in these fields. The minister and I regret that it has not been possible to take such men off other more urgent work in order to try to answer this.
4.
Loans granted from 1929 Loans in force as at to December 31, 1964*	December 31, 1964*
No.	Amount	No. AmountProvince of Quebec	11,769	$ 55,586,169	3,314 $ 24,740,609Other provinces	81,032	543,494,798	43,706 378,003,219*The above figures include loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act.	5.	Expenditures for allowances and dis- Expenditures for allowances and dis-	Fiscal	ability pensions'"' to *	veterans in	ability	pensions'"' to veterans inYear	Montreal and Quebec	: districts16'	all other districts01'$	$1945-46	14,111,951	97,403,1491946-47	22,892,812	151,952,9171947-48	16,502,474	126,951,4861948-49	15,164,571	133,556,8991949-50	14,184,029	119,861,7521950-51	13,840,104	116,367,0391951-52	13,025,714	123,620,8821952-53	15,958,920	143,362,4941953-54	16,140,015	142,641,8531954-55	17,640,493	143,427,0351955-56	19,111,928	154,411,2631956-57	18,466,827	156,786,0181957-58	22,197,871	175,893,8231958-59	22,390,591	188,483,6471959-60	22,746,119	189,955,2371960-61	23,154,734	192,070,3011961-62	27,824,174	231,658,6391962-63	28,716,566	235,608,5611963-64	28,944,007	234,337,902
'"'Includes all payments made under the Pension Act.
<h)The Montreal and Quebec districts account for approximately 95 per cent of the veterans living within the province of Quebec. The other 5 per cent live in the Ottawa and Charlottetown districts. Since the latter districts relate very largely to veterans in other provinces than Quebec, they have been included in the column headed "All other districts".
6. No information is available concerning the provincial distribution of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct or guaranteed loans outstanding. However, data is available on loans approved by province and this is listed below for years from 1954 on.
[Mr. Caouette.l
(a)	National Housing Act mortgage loans approved-net (thousands of dollars)
Calendar year	Quebec	Other provinces1954	81,128	373,8291955	97,899	517,3891956	68,205	338,9011957	87,737	406,1761958	142,586	740,1601959	99,159	526,6841960	81,912	310,6271961	147,239	555,1971962	135,098	411,5321963	155,357	504,4181964 preliminary	153,503	575,550
(b) Home improvement net (thousands of dollars)		loans approved-
Calendar year	Quebec	Other provinces1955	3,211	23,9821956	2,682	26,9591957	2,670	27,8531958	4,537	35,1411959	5,287	32,1631960	4,409	25,5671961	8,578	33,8561962	8,381	29,5561963	8,886	27,777(c) University housing net (thousands of dollars)	loans approved-Calendar year	Quebec	Other provinces1961	8,637	12,5021962	4,419	16,9641963	13,515	14,113
(d) Sewage treatment loans approved-net (thousands of dollars)
Calendar year	Quebec	Other provinces1961	244	39,2731962	3,569	39,7841963	2,273	33,639
7. This question requires a considerable amount of work. Much of this has now been done but a complete answer will not be available for a few days.


POSTAGE STAMP DEPOTS, ALBERTA, MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. More: 1.	As of December 31, 1964, how many postage stamp depots were being operated in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (a) what are their locations (b) when were they established (c) what is the floor space occupied by each (d) when did they occupy their present quarters (e) what is the staff of each depot (f) what was the accounting revenue for each depot for their last annual accounting period (g) what was the total operating cost of each depot for their last annual accounting period (h) how many offices did each depot service?
2.	Has any decision been taken to close any of the above depots and, if so (a) which ones (b) what will be the effective date of closure (c) what will be done with present staff (d) where will the services now being provided be consolidated?
3.	What economies will be provided by these decisions (a) in occupied space (b) in staff and salaries (c) in total overhead savings?
4.	Will there be increased delay in filling requisitions and, if so, how much?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1.	Five, (a) Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton; Manitoba, Winnipeg; Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon.
Questions
(b)	Calgary, April 1, 1934; Edmonton, April 1, 1934; Winnipeg, April 1, 1934; Regina, April 1, 1934; Saskatoon, October 1, 1934.
(c)	Calgary, 1,135 sq. ft.; Edmonton, 2,400 sq. ft.; Winnipeg, 3,350 sq. ft.; Regina, 1,100 sq. ft.; Saskatoon, 1,600 sq. ft.
(d)	Calgary, May 8, 1961; Edmonton, April 1, 1934; Winnipeg, May 31, 1958; Regina, May 25, 1957; Saskatoon, September 2, 1961.
(e)	Calgary, 6; Edmonton, 7; Winnipeg, 11; Regina, 4; Saskatoon, 8.
(f)	A postage stamp depot, by itself, has no revenue. The following shows the value of postage supplies sent by each depot to its dependant offices for sale during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964: Calgary, $3,974,109.24; Edmonton, $4,094,699.96; Winnipeg, $5,782,232.43; Regina, $2,301,412.20; Saskatoon, $2,363,293.47.
(g)	The total operating cost is not available, but the combined cost of staff salaries and the cost of space assessed against the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works is: Calgary, $27,286.93; Edmonton, $33,356.40; Winnipeg, $52,321.35; Regina, $20,009.10; Saskatoon, $35,799.60.
(h)	Number of offices
Depot	served
Calgary	446
Edmonton	706
Winnipeg	935
Regina	510
Saskatoon	667
2.	Yes.
(a)	Regina postage stamp depot.
(b)	April 1, 1965.
(c)	Of the staff of four: two are being assigned to positions not lower than their present classification, one has already been transferred to another government department, and the civil service commission is endeavouring to place the fourth employee prior to April 1, 1965.
(d)	Services now being provided by the Regina postage stamp depot will be divided between the Calgary and Saskatoon postage stamp depots which are located at the respective district office headquarters.
3.	(a) Based on the flat rate assessed against the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works for space in public buildings, there will be a reduction of $3,389.10 per annum in the assessment against this department when the 1100 sq. ft. of occupied space at Regina is vacated.
(b)	There is no saving in the number of staff to be employed as two positions each

Questions
will be added to the Calgary and Saskatoon depots. Some reduction in salary costs may result when the classifications of these positions are established.
(c)	The decision to close the Regina stamp depot has not been dictated by the economies that might result in the use of space or personnel, but in order to improve the administrative procedures which affect the operation of the post offices and ultimately the service to the public. Due to a number of changes in post office operation in the prairie provinces, it is not desirable to have a depot in Regina and the administrative staff responsible for the service located in the Calgary and Saskatoon district offices. For efficient administration the district office staff must have immediate access to information, which up to now was only available at the stamp depot itself where the requisitions are actually filled. The change will eliminate correspondence and telephone calls between Regina and Calgary, and Regina and Saskatoon, reduce administrative delays, improve control, and ultimately permit the individual post offices to provide better service. However, we cannot determine the total overhead savings because
we are not able to establish the saving that will result in the improvement in management.
4.	No.


POSTAL STORES DEPOTS, ALBERTA, MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. More: 1.	As of December 31, 1964, how many postal stores depots were being operated in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (a) what are their locations (b) when were they established (c) what is the floor space occupied by each (d) when did they occupy their present quarters (e) what is the staff of each depot (f) what was the accounting revenue for each depot for their last annual accounting period (g) what was the total operating cost of each depot for their last annual accounting period (h) how many offices did each depot service?
2.	Has any decision been taken to close any of the above depots and, if so (a) which ones (b) what will be the effective date of closure (c) what will be done with present staff (d) where will the services now being provided be consolidated?
3.	What economies will be provided by these decisions (a) in occupied space (b) in staff and salaries (c) in total overhead savings?
4.	Will there be increased delay in filling requisitions and, if so, how much?


René Tremblay: 1.	Four.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) (g>
(h)
Winnipeg Around the end of world war 1 5236 sq. ft. 1958
Regina
4080 sq. ft. 1957
Nil*
$29,626**
3
Nil*
$27,108**
Calgary
4800 sq. ft. 1960
Nil*
$27,865**
Edmonton Around the end of world war 1 7200 sq. ft. Around the end of world war 1 3
Nil*
$30,562**
* Postal stores depots distribute equipment and supplies. There is no operating revenue.
** The amounts include the cost of staff salaries and the cost of space assessed against the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works. The total operating cost is not available.
2.	Yes.
(a)	Regina and Calgary.
(b)	Regina, 13 February 1965; Calgary, 28 February 1965.
(c)	Regina: one employee has been transferred to Regina post office, one to R.C.M.P., and one is presently on extended sick leave and as a result a decision on suitable placement is being deferred.

Calgary: two employees have been transferred to Calgary post office, and one has been reassigned within Calgary postal district office staff.
(d)	At the Winnipeg and Edmonton postal stores depots.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) It is not possible to attribute economies specifically to the closing of postal stores depots at Regina and Calgary since the closing of these depots is part of the over-all reorganization of the postal stores depots from British Columbia to Newfoundland. Recommendations concerning consolidation of supply depots were proposed in the report of the royal commission on government organization and the reorganization

of postal stores is being made in the light of these recommendations. The closing of the Regina and Calgary depots will reduce expenditures for staff and space but this saving should be considered in the light of the reorganization in Canada as a whole. The overall savings cannot be established until all the adjustments in the reorganization have been made. When the changes have been completed it is expected that appreciable economies will result not only in staff and accommodation but also in such areas as maintenance and control of inventories, transportation, and management generally.
4.	There will be no delay in filling requisitions.


GRANT FOR MATERIAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the national research council received requests from McMaster University, for a grant for a material research laboratory and, if so, when were such requests received and what was the amount requested?
2.	When were these requests answered and what was the answer?
3.	If the request was declined, what were the reasons for the refusal?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the national research council is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	No, not directly. The national research council does not make grants to universities. However, on 23rd January 1963, an application was received from Dr. Howard E. Petch of McMaster University, requesting $2,028,600 over a period of five years, on behalf of a materials research centre at that institution, and a continuing grant of $250,000 per annum thereafter. Dr. Petch submitted in June 1964 an interim report on the materials research unit to supplement the original proposal and request.
2.	The request was acknowledged on 25th January 1963 and was considered by the national research council in March and November of that year. It was necessary to defer until November 1964 further consideration of this request along with others for grants of a similar nature and scale. In December, Dr. Petch was informed that the project would not be supported, as were the authors of other proposals to establish institutes or centres for special studies, except as noted in the answer to question No. 3.
3.	Scholarships and research grants to individual university scientists are given first
Questions
priority in distributing funds available to the national research council. Funds were not available to meet extraordinary demands in the amounts involved in this and other similar requests, including another from McMaster University. The applicants were informed that the national research council, in line with its established practices, would consider applications for materials research from individual scientists or jointly from individuals who would share research equipment.


REPORTED POISONING FROM RUSSIAN CANDY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government investigated reports of the poisoning of two Hamilton, Ontario boys after eating allegedly Russian made candy and, if so, what have been the results of such investigation?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No investigation was undertaken by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The directorate's Toronto office was consulted by the Hamilton health officials and it was understood that if the suspected poisoning, on further investigation, was substantiated, the food and drug office in Toronto would be consulted further.



WITHDRAWAL OF RAILWAY PASS PRIVILEGES, HOTEL VANCOUVER EMPLOYEES

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have employees at the Hotel Vancouver lost their railway pass privileges and, if so, on what date were these pass privileges withdrawn?
2.	How many employees are involved in this loss of pass privileges?
3.	What is the reason for this decision made by the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Pass privileges were withdrawn on January 1, 1964, the date on which Hilton of Canada Limited assumed operation of the Hotel Vancouver.
2.	Approximately 550.
3.	When the management of the Vancouver hotel was taken over by Hilton of Canada Limited, the employees became employees of that company and, under board of transport commissioners' regulations, are not entitled to pass privileges.

Questions



REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

Mr. Howard: With reference to the Queen Charlotte islands in British Columbia (a) what was the total amount of government revenue from the islands in the last five fiscal years (b) what were the amounts of revenue, by source, in the last five fiscal years
(c)	what was the total government expenditure on the islands for each of the last five fiscal years
(d)	what were the expenditures, by function on the islands for each of the last five fiscal years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: This information is not available.



MENTION OF U.S. RACIAL STRIFE IN C.B.C. NEWSCASTS

Mr. Slogan: 1.	In how many C.B.C. national newscasts, since January X, 1963, have reports on racial strife in the United States been reported?
2.	Who supplies the C.B.C. with material for these news items?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: 1. I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that under board of broadcast governors regulations radio and television stations are only required to keep broadcast scripts on file for a period of six months after broadcast and so the corporation does not have an accurate record of the number of radio and television newscasts since January 1, 1963.
2.	The various press, radio and television news services, staff reporters and freelance commentators and newspapers correspondents.



TRAFFIC TO AND FROM PORT AUX BASQUES, NFLD.

Mr. Tucker: 1.	What was the total number of passenger vehicles carried by the C.N.R. carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1959 to 1964?
2.	What was the total number of trucks and other commercial vehicles carried by the C.N.R. carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1959 to 1964?
3.	What was the total number carried by other carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1959 to 1964, with respect to parts 1 and 2 above?
4.	What was the total number of passengers carried in each year from 1959 to 1964 by (a) the coastal ferry William Carson (b) other ferries during the same period?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Passenger vehicles carried on M.V. William Carson: 1959, 11,600; 1960, 15,427; 1961, 15,875; 1962, 18,799; 1963, 22,040; 1964, 26,318.
2.	Trucks and other commercial vehicles carried on M.V. William Carson: 1959, 1,882; 1960, 2,277; 1961, 2,886; 1962, 3,572; 1963, 4,139; 1964, 4,592.
3.	The number of motor vehicles carried by other Canadian National operated boats
is as follows:		
Year	Automobiles	Trucks
1959	655	
1960	405	
1961	676	
1962	890	
1963	704	
1964	230	94.	(a) Number of passengers carried on M.V. William Carson:	1959, 52,251; 1960,
62,366; 1961, 62,566; 1962, 70,193; 1963, 77,408; 1964, 103,473.
(b)	Number of passengers carried on other Canadian National operated boats: 1959, 5,470; 1960, 5,327; 1961, 6,597; 1962, 7,125; 1963, 14,896; 1964, 3,605.



DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO VANCOUVER FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,720-Mr. Basford: Supplementary
For the fiscal years ending in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962, what contracts were awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Dawson Construction Limited, or Dawson, Wade and Company Limited, or Dawson and Hall Limited, Vancouver, B.C., for work in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, and what are the amounts and details of any such contracts so awarded?
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned, see page No. 12453.

Date of Contract
Name of Firm
Remarks
Description of supplies/services performed	Total value
31 May 1961	Dawson, Wade & Company Limited, Vancouver	Grading and paving 256 sq. yds. around radio site bus stop area, RCAF station Whitehorse, Y.T.	$1,350.00	Three firms invited to tender and this firm submitted the only tender.23 June 1961	Dawson, Wade & Company Limited, Vancouver	Repair of various roads at Camp Takhini, Whitehorse, Y.T.	$1,844.85	Contractor already working in area and thus only firm known to have equipment available at site.23 May 1963	Dawson Construction Limited, Vancouver	Loading and hauling approx. 30,000 cu. yds. of gravel from DND stockpile for surfacing a 21-mile section of Alaska highway (Mile 930 to 951) (Later increased to 40,000 cu. yds for additional six miles of surfacing)	$39,900.00 (Later increased to $53,200 to cover additional work)	Nine firms invited and five firms tendered. Dawson construction submitted lowest tender. While work was in progress, DND decided to extend surfacing a further 6 miles thus increasing requirement to 40,000 cu. yds. Additional requirement was negotiated with Dawson construction since it was in most advantageous position to quote.10 July 1963	Dawson Construction Limited, Vancouver	Repairs to and resurfacing of parade square at Camp Takhine, Whitehorse, Y.T.	$4,590.00	Contractor already working in area on a DCL contract and thus was only firm known to have necessary equipment available at site.16 July 1963	Dawson Construction Limited, Vancouver	Supply of hot mix asphalt to Northwest highway maintenance establishment, camp 918, Whitehorse, Y.T. as required during period from 16 July to 31 October 1963	$2,000.00	Only known source of supply in the area31 July 1963	Dawson Construction Limited, Vancouver	Supply of cold mix asphalt, asphalt spray and spray truck to Northwest highway maintenance establishment, Whitehorse, Y.T.	$4,000.00	Seven firms were invited to tender. Five < firms did not quote, one firm quoted on only two items out of four. Dawson Construction Limited submitted lowest tender for two items and the only tender for the other twro items and was awarded the contract.19 Sept. 1963	Dawson Construction Limited, Vancouver	Reconstruction and asphalt paving of Alaska highway from milepost 917.6 to milepost 917.8.	$6,100.00	Only known supplier with equipment in the area available to do the work.
Questions

Questions



INDIAN SCHOOL, ST. MARC DE FIGUERY, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,726
Mr. Laprise:: 1.	When was the Indian residential school at St. Marc de Figuery built, and how much did it cost?
2.	How much has the federal government spent annually on maintenance of this residential school?
3.	What is the normal annual cost of upkeep?
4.	How many teachers are teaching in the school this year?
5.	What is the total of their salaries?
6.	How many students have registered annually at this residential school since its first year of operation?
7.	What does the federal government spend, on the average, for each student at this residential school in the course of a year?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. The Amos residential school was started in 1953-54, completed in 1955-56 at a total cost of $695,919.00, plus $35,000.00 for land.
2.	1955-56, $521.38;	1956-57, $30,472.13;
1957-58, $8,637.74; 1958-59, $15,108.73; 195960, $2,697.84; 1960-61, $13,182.63; 1961-62, $27,549.92; 1962-63, $7,651.40; 1963-64, $2,130.46.
3.	The normal annual cost of upkeep in accordance with the audit reports available are: 1958, $94,676.00; 1959, $112,531.08; 1960, $116,467.64; 1961, $125,167.56; 1962, $128,223.63; 1963, $120,126.10.
4.	7.
5.	$35,325.
6.	1955, 147; 1956, 215; 1957, 205; 1958, 202; 1959, 212; 1960, 195; 1961, 224; 1962, 197; 1963, 192; 1964, 194.
7.	$785.82 per pupil.



FEDERAL EDUCATION COSTS. FORT GEORGE, QUE.

Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much did the federal government spend in 1963 and 1964, toward the education of children at Fort George, Que. (a) studying at Fort George (b) studying outside Fort George?
2.	What is the yearly cost of (a) a day student (b) a boarder at (i) St. Philip's residential school (ii) Ste Theresa residential school at Fort George?


Hubert Badanai: 1. (a) 1962-63, $600,055.88; included in this figure is an amount of $400,000 for construction of classroom and hostel facilities. 1963-64, $847,268.06; included in this figure is an amount of $562,405.03 for completion of the facilities started in 1962-63 and $30,038.56 for furnishings for the new quarters,
(b)	Approximately $62,000.00 in each year. 
2.	(a) (i) Yearly cost of a day student, St. Philip's (Fort George) residential school, $237.30.
(a)	(ii) Yearly cost of a boarder, St. Philip's (Fort George) residential school, $1,374.80.
(b)	(i) Yearly cost of day student, Ste Theresa's (Fort George) residential school, $300.
(b) (ii) Yearly cost of boarder, Ste Theresa's (Fort George) residential school, $674.29.



CHANGE IN C.B.C. NEWS BROADCAST TIME, WINNIPEG

Mr. Slogan: 1.	For what reason was the C.B.C. national news telecast time changed from ten o'clock p.m. to eleven o'clock p.m. in Winnipeg?
2.	Would the C.B.C. take steps to see that Its news telecasts do not coincide with news telecasts on other stations serving the area?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	This change took effect in October 1963 when video tape recording facilities were installed in Winnipeg. This enables CBWT to broadcast the national network television programs in the central time zone at the same local time as they are broadcast in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. In this way, the national network program pattern, in terms of local time, is the same in each time zone.
2.	The C.B.C. stations are network outlets and it would be extremely difficult to vary this scheduling of newscasts so as to avoid the situation to which the hon. member refers.



ABILITY OF TEACHER AT INDIAN SCHOOL, MASSET, B.C.

Mr. Howard: Did the commissioner for Indian affairs in B.C. receive any letters in April or May of 1964 from anyone in British Columbia school district No. 50 (Queen Charlotte islands) expressing feelings about the teaching capabilities of one Maxwell Tracey at Masset, B.C., and, if so, what was the name of each person who sent such letters, the date, and nature of each reply?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, a letter dated April 24, 1964 was addressed to the Indian commissioner for British Columbia, by Mrs. D. J. Karlson, secretary treasurer, board of school trustees, school district No. 50 (Queen Charlotte islands).
No written reply was made but Mrs. Karl-son's complaint was investigated by a regional officer of the Indian affairs branch as requested.



REPAYMENT OF MONEY TO INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH, PRINCE GEORGE, B.C.

Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1964, has any person been required to sign any documents to the effect that he or she will repay any money provided by the Indian affairs branch in Prince George, B.C. and, if so, what, in detail, are the circumstances surrounding this transaction with an indication of the names and addresses of the persons involved?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, the Stuart Lake Indian agency at Prince George made advances, subject to repayment, to a number of Indians for which an undertaking was secured, for the following reasons:
(a) transportation warrants:	Ben Ward,
c/o Edmonton I.A.; Andrew Casimel, Fraser Lake, B.C.; Walter Joseph, Burns Lake, B.C.; Stephen Dominic, Fort St. James, B.C.; Isaac
Questions
Todd, Fort St. James, B.C.; Isaac Todd, Fort St. James, B.C.; Joseph Pierre, Burns Lake, B.C.
(b)	housing assistance at Peace River project: Sam Dennis, McLeod Lake, B.C.; Lawrence Pierre, McLeod Lake, B.C.; Willie Pierre, McLeod Lake, B.C.
(c)	tools for attendance at vocational training courses: James Young, Skeena I.A., Prince Rupert; Denis Robinson, Terrace I.A., Terrace; Hanford Brown, Babine I. A., Hazel ton; Chester McMillan, Terrace I.A., Terrace.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Mather: What was the amount, in dollars, of Department of Public Works contracts let, by provinces, in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Amounts expended by the Department of Public Works, by provinces, during fiscal years 1959-60 to 1963-64 inclusive.
Province	1959-60
Newfoundland	15,248,924
Nova Scotia	10,454,912
Prince Edward Island	3,251,477
New Brunswick	15,612,883
Quebec	20,375,568
Ontario	82,143,985
Manitoba	5,092,565
Saskatchewan	2,453,960
Alberta	6,985,314
British Columbia	33,001,828
Yukon and N.W.T.	3,785,869



C.N.R. PERSONNEL AND ROCK SLIDES

Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of supervisory officers, number of employees working in offices of supervisory officers and number of other Canadian National rail employees at the dates January 31, 1945, January 31, 1955, and January 31, 1965?
2.	What was the number of track patrolmen employed in 1960, and in 1965, on the Yale and Ashcroft subdivisions?
3.	What was the number of Canadian National derailments caused in British Columbia by slides
1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-6417,095,336	11,002,601	8,507,992	17,718,25510,465,838	8,345,634	6,291,286	5,218,7052,296,354	1,825,780	1,998,910	2,321,2248,634,431	8,263,521	5,851,104	9,476,97818,814,518	21,221,907	27,767,912	24,213,04667,939,571	70,962,550	54,122,063	54,381,6174,374,187	5,176,166	3,351,667	2,435,5663,286,437	3,034,461	2,518,848	2,034,0715,047,523	4,955,729	3,146,923	3,173,95634,107,777	25,698,392	21,872,615	18,050,8243,222,358	1,403,836	1,175,251	2,224,099
and rocks in December, 1964, and January, 1965? 4. What was the total cost of these accidents?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. The numbers of employees engaged in railway operations on Canadian lines are as follows. As monthly records for 1945 are not available, the data shown has been compiled on an annual basis for the years 1945, 1955 and 1964.
1945	1955	1964No. of	% of	No. of	% of	No. of	% ofEmpls.	Total	Empls.	Total	Empls.	TotalManagerial and supervisory Professional, technical	6,768	8.2	8,833	9.8	7,831	10.4and staff assistants	492	0.6	1,042	1.1	2,802	3.7Clerical	10,726	13.1	11,801	13.1	10,415	13.9Remainder	64,108	78.1	68,620	76.0	54,045	72.0Total	82,094	100.0	90,296	100.0	75,093	100.0
Questions
2.	In 1960 there were 36 regular and 15 relief patrolmen employed on the Yale and Ashcroft subdivisions, patrolling on hand velocipedes. Presently there are 14 regular, six relief and four temporary patrolmen employed, operating from radio equipped track inspection cars.
3.	During December 1964 and January 1965, there were four train derailments on this area as a result of trains striking slides. In addition, a stationary train was derailed as a result of a slide striking some of the cars. A snowplow was also derailed when bucking a slide.
4.	About $105,000 damage to railway property.



EXPO '67-EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSOR GOSSELIN

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has a Professor Emile Gosselin a position with Expo '67 on its labour relations staff and, if so, when was he hired, at what salary, what were his references, what was his background of successful experience, and did any federal minister support his application in any way?
2.	Have the authorities of Expo '67 taken up the matter of Professor Gosselin's record while he was an arbitrator at the Aluminum Company of Canada plant in Arvida between 1957 and 1961?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Answer to part 1: Professor Emile Gosselin was hired on January 21, 1964, as deputy director of labour relations at the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition. His present salary is $22,500 per annum. The references given on his application form were: Mr. Jean-Marie Martin of the Quebec department of education, Mgr. Louis-Albert Vachon, rector, Laval University, and Mr. Napoleon Leblanc, dean of the faculty of social sciences, Laval University. From his application form, Mr. Gosselin's background experience can be established as follows: he has been a professor at Laval University, since 1949. He served as secretary of the industrial relations branch of the faculty of social sciences from 1950 to 1956 and as secretary of the faculty from 1959 to 1962. From 1953 to 1958 he was responsible for the organization of the annual symposium held at the university on industrial relations. From 1958 to 1960 he was deputy director of the labour relations branch of the faculty. In 1962 he was director of the courses given on public administration. From 1949 up to 1955 he acted as professor and research associate at Cornell University, doing research on community and labour problems.

Professor Gosselin holds a bachelor's degree in arts and a law degree from the University of Montreal. He also holds a master's degree in economy from the University of Toronto and has spent two years toward a doctor's degree in industrial relations at the University of Chicago.
He has done some research for the Quebec forest industries association and has served as a consultant in industrial relations on the royal commission on government organization. From 1957 to 1961 he was one of three arbitrators appointed under the collective labour agreement at the Arvida plant of the Aluminum Company of Canada.
Answer to part 2: The corporation received a letter bearing the signature G. H. Schwartz, dated January 28, 1965, together with certain documents purporting to be a review made by the legal advisers of the Aluminum Company of Canada of certain decisions rendered by Mr. Gosselin in the performance of his duties as arbitrator. The corporation has reviewed these documents.



POST OFFICE SURPLUS CASH FUND

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there a so-called surplus cash fund kept and administered in Canadian post offices and, if so, what is the authority for its creation and what are the rules for its administration?
2.	Does each fund continue to build or is there some time limit or money level beyond which it cannot go and if the latter, what happens to the money above this level?
3.	Does the money in the surplus cash fund turned in by a clerk ever accrue to his record and, if so, is it ever used later to balance an error he may have made?


René Tremblay: 1.	Yes. At staff and semi-staff post offices and postal stations where individual wicket clerks' credits have been established, all surplus cash in amounts of $5 or under, disclosed in the credits of individual clerks, is placed in a special surplus cash fund for each wicket clerk separately. Likewise, all surpluses of $5 and under found in the main stock, are placed in a special surplus cash fund for the clerk in charge of the main stock.
The surplus cash fund is used to make good shortages up to $5 found in the same clerk's credit, or $5 of any larger shortages found in the same credit.
The authority for this system is vested in the Postmaster General by virtue of the Post Office Act, section 5.
The surplus cash fund is administered as follows: (1) The funds collected are kept sepa-

rate from official postal funds and are kept in the custody of the postmaster or a senior supervisor.
(2) The postmaster is required to maintain a record of all surpluses of $5 and under received, and shortages reimbursed from the surplus cash fund, including: (a) the date the surplus or shortage was detected; (b) name of wicket clerk concerned; (c) amount of surplus of $5 and under received; (d) the amount of the shortage made good from surplus cash fund; (e) balance of all surplus cash remaining in the fund.
2.	When the balance in any one clerk's fund reaches $25, subsequent surpluses are not credited to it until it has been decreased from this figure as a result of withdrawals required for adjustment of shortages experienced by the same clerk.
Moneys collected in excess of the maximum $25 limit are accounted for by the postmaster through his cash account and are deposited to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada on post office account.
3.	Surpluses of $5 and under, turned in by clerks, are used to make good shortages, up to $5 or $5 of any larger shortage, which are the responsibility of the same clerk.



FECTEAU AIR TRANSPORT CO. LICENCE

Mr. Laprise: Is the A. Fecteau Air Transport Co. Ltd. licensed by the air transport board and, if so, what locations are served by this company under such licence or licences?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: A. Fecteau Transport Aerien Ltee. is authorized: (a) by licence No. ATB 44/46 (C), 1078/60 (C), 1346/62 (C), 1503/63 (C) and 1548/64 (C) to operate a charter commercial air service to transport persons and/or goods between points within Canada from bases at Senneterre, Amos, Gagnon, Chibougamau and Mattagami, P.Q., using aircraft having an authorized take-off weight on wheels exceeding 2,500 lbs. but not exceeding 18,000 lbs.
(b) by licence No. ATB 60/51 (CF) to operate an international non-scheduled charter commercial air service from a base at Senneterre, P.Q.; and
(c) by licence No. ATB 437/46 (NS) to operate an irregular specific point commercial air service to transport persons and/or goods from a base at Senneterre, serving the points: Lac Doda, Lac Cache, Mistassini Post, Rupert river, Lac Mistassini, Temiscamie, Obedjiwan, Oskelaneo river and Manuan, P.Q.
17, 1965	12457
Questions



RODAIR INC. LICENCE

Mr. Laprise: Does Rodair Inc. hold a licence or licences from the air transport board and, if so, what air services are offered by this company under such licence or licences?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rodair is authorized by licence No. ATB 1044/59 (C) to operate a charter commercial air service to transport within Canada persons and/or goods from a base at Montreal, using aircraft having an authorized take-off weight on wheels not exceeding 18,000 lbs.; and by licence No. ATB 1045/59 (NS)-it is authorized to operate an irregular specific point commercial air service to transport persons and/or goods from a base at Montreal, serving the point Parent, P.Q.



AUSTIN AIRWAYS CO. LICENCE

Mr. Laprise: Is the Austin Airways Co. Ltd. licensed by the air transport board to operate an air transport service and, if so, what is the geographical field of operations of this company and what, in detail, are the localities served?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Austin Airways Ltd. is authorized: (a) by licences Nos. ATB 11/46 (C) and 85/46 (C) to operate a charter commercial air service to transport persons and/or goods from bases at South Porcupine and Moosonee, Ontario, using aircraft having an authorized take-off weight on wheels exceeding 2,500 lbs.
(b)	by licences Nos. 3/45 (C) and 75/45 (Cl to operate a charter service from bases at Sudbury and Nakina, Ont., using aircraft having an authorized take-off weight on wheels in excess of 2,500 lbs. but not exceeding 18,000 lbs. It is also authorized to operate a specialty service from Sudbury.
(c)	by licences Nos. ATB 159/51 (CF), 53/51 (CF), 160/51 (CF) and 177/51 (CF) to operate an international non-scheduled charter commercial air service from bases at South Porcupine, Sudbury, Nakina and Moosonee, Ont.
(d)	by licences Nos. ATB 338/48 (NS) and 351/48 (NS) to operate an irregular specific point commercial air service from bases at Nakina and Sudbury, serving the points: South Porcupine, Killarney, Little Current, Gore Bay, Elliot Lake, Ft. Hope, Ogoki Post, and Lansdowne House, Ont.; and,
(e)	by licences Nos. ATB 86/46 (NS) and 1033/59 (NS) to operate a regular specific point commercial air service, serving the points: Timmins, South Porcupine, Nellie Lake (Ontario), Rupert's House, East Main, Paint

Questions
Hills, Fort George, Great Whale, Port Harrison, Povungnituk, Sugluk (P.Q.) and Cape Dorset, (N.W.T.); Moosonee, Albany Post, Attawapiskat, Cape Henrietta Maria, Winisk and Fort Severn (Ontario).



TRANSFER OF SUNNYBROOK MILITARY HOSPITAL

Mr. MacRae: 1.	Has Sunnybrook military hospital been transferred from the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs to any other authority and, if so, on what date did this take place?
2.	What provision is made for veterans to receive the same standard of medical care under the new jurisdiction as heretofore?
3.	Was approval for this move obtained from all levels of the Royal Canadian Legion, national, provincial, and local?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. No. However agreement in principle has been reached for the transfer of Sunnybrook hospital to the control of the University of Toronto as soon as the details of such transfer can be worked out.
2.	The department will retain priority use of sufficient beds to meet its obligations for the treatment of veterans and will continue to have control over the admission and discharge of its patients. Treatment will be provided by physicians and surgeons who hold teaching appointments in the faculty of medicine of the university. The existing standards of treatment for veterans will be maintained at least at their present level, if not improved.
3.	The Royal Canadian Legion at the national, provincial and local levels, as well as other interested veterans' organizations have given their support to the proposed transfer under the conditions outlined in 2.



INSTALLATION OF WATER METERS, JASPER, ALTA.

Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	What is the total cost of water meters that are to be installed in Jasper?
2.	What company has the contract?
3.	What additional revenue will the government receive by the installation of water meters?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 

2.	Fuller and Knowles Company Limited, P.O. box 5680, 6005-76 avenue, Edmonton, Alberta.
3.	At the present time it is not possible to forecast what additional revenue, if any, will accrue to the government as a result of

the installation of meters. The rates charged by the government for providing water and disposing sewage are based on the costs of operating the water and sewer system. This cost must be distributed in some manner and the meters will make the distribution of this cost more equitable.



ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM

Mr. Deachman: 1.	What is the present state, in terms of expenditure, of the roads to resources program in each of the provinces?
2.	As of January 31, 1965, what were the snow surveys with water equivalent in the various regions of British Columbia and what is the comparison with long term averages?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Province	Total Contribution
expenditure by federal to date* government
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia * March 1, 1965.
$10,170,349	$4,153,577
11,932,147	5,966,073
13,943,857	7,060,914
12,471,258	5,249,999
11,234,379	5,436,654
13,979,351	5,913,586
13,461,730	6,403,142
10,954,338	5,477,169
13,926,146	6,963,073
12,681,366	6,340,683
2. The British Columbia water resources service operates the network of snow courses in that province where snow surveys are made on or near the first of each month from February to June inclusive, with an extra sampling on or near May 15. The results of these snow surveys are published by that service in bulletins released a few days after each survey.
The February 1 snow survey shows that in general snow packs are above average at lower levels and close to average at higher levels, except in the Kootenay river basin and the southern portion of the Columbia river basin just north of the international boundary where snow packs at all levels are somewhat above average.
The water equivalent of the February 1, 1965 snow surveys in the various regions of British Columbia compared with the average in each instance is summarized in the following table:

Questions
Average water equivalent (inches)
Drainage basin On	Feb. 1/65
Columbia	14.7
(12 courses)	
Kootenay	12.7
(8 courses)	
Okanagan-Similkameen	8.3
(9 courses)	
Skagit	9.4
(2 courses)	
Fraser	10.4
(19 courses)	
Lower Coastal	26.0
(10 courses)	
Peace	8.1
(1 course)



LOAN TO BRITAIN

Mr. Cole (Chicoulimi): 1.	Since the advent of the Wilson government in England, has the government of Canada loaned $200,000,000 to that country to strengthen the pound sterling?
2.	Was this loan made directly from the national treasury or consolidated revenue fund or through the Bank of Canada?
3.	At what rate of interest was this loan of $200,000,000 made and what are the terms for its reimbursement?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is as follows: The Minister of Finance announced in the House of Commons on November 25, 1964, that Canada was participating through the Bank of Canada with the central banks of ten other countries in establishing stand-by facilities for the Bank of England to help it to defend the pound sterling against speculation. The amount of the stand-by was $3,000 million, of which Canada's participation was $200 million. A similar stand-by had been established in September, 1964, amounting to $1,000 million; Canada's participation therein, which was fully drawn, had been $50 million and this stand-by lapsed in December when all drawings were repaid after the United Kingdom had borrowed $1,000 million from the international monetary fund.
When these facilities are drawn upon, the government sells U.S. dollars from the exchange fund to the Bank of Canada. The bank then places these funds on deposit with the Bank of England. The government utilizes the Canadian dollars generated by the sales of U.S. dollars to purchase government securities from the Bank of Canada for the securities investment account. When the relevant drawing is repaid, the exchange
For period of record Average number of
14.0	14
10.6	17
7.6	14
9.2	16
10.1	10
24.4	7
4.6	5
fund repurchases the U.S. dollars from the bank. To provide the Canadian dollars to finance this repurchase, the government sells the government securities held in the securities investment account to the bank.
The answer to part 3 is as follows: Drawings under the stand-by bear interest based on short term market rates. The stand-by was initially arranged for a three month period, and recently has been renewed for a further three months.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Soulham: 1.	What is the total mileage of trans-Canada highway completed?
2.	What was the total cost of the trans-Canada highway?
3.	What was the federal government's share of the total cost?
4.	What was the federal government's share for each of the provinces?
5.	What was the estimated total cost per mile of construction for each of Canada's provinces?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Mileage completed to date under the trans-Canada highway agreement totals 3,645 miles. This does not include sections of the route which were paved prior to the passing of the Trans-Canada Highway Act and on which the province has not initiated reconstruction.
2 and 3. The value of work approved to date as being shareable under the trans-Canada highway agreement totals $919,552,625. Canada's share of this amount would be approximately $583,649,829. and of this amount $457,978,743.76 has been paid to date.
4.	The federal government has paid to each of the provinces, the following amounts to date: Newfoundland, $59,389,253.85; Prince Edward Island, $7,877,787.83; Nova Scotia,

Questions
$21,610,330.18; New Brunswick, $49,530,561.02; Quebec, $27,869,901.40 Ontario, $118,996,451.50; Manitoba, $18,565,035.43; Saskatchewan, $15,431,482.78; Alberta, $21,833,125.99; British Columbia, $116,874,813.78.
5.	The average approved expenditure per mile to date under the act for each province is as follows: Newfoundland, $217,000; Prince Edward Island, $81,096; Nova Scotia, $181,920; New Brunswick, $287,400; Quebec, $457,000; Ontario, $189,410; Manitoba, $102,519; Saskatchewan, $66,125; Alberta, $134,980; British Columbia, $372,000.
Figures quoted vary considerably depending on the extent of construction or reconstruction required, on the type of terrain involved and on the extent of construction in urban areas.



AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEM FOR GASPE REGION

Mr. Bechard: Does the government intend to establish, in the near future, an effective air transport system in the Gaspe which will provide for the distinctive requirements of this remote region and make provision for industrial, tourist and economic developments in the Gaspe region and, if so (a) what are the government's plans in this regard (b) does the government intend to improve existing airports and build others in the Gaspe region and, if so, where and when?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The government is prepared to assist public bodies including municipalities, counties and appropriate departments and agencies of the province by providing cost sharing assistance in the development or improvement of airports in the Gaspe where it is apparent that the airport for which assistance is requested would contribute to the industrial, tourist and economic development of the area.
(a)	Included in above.
(b)	It is intended to improve the airport at Gaspe (Haldimand) this year. There are no immediate plans for the construction or improvement of other airports in the area.



INVESTIGATION OF FARM MACHINERY INDUSTRY

Mr. Mather: Has a request been received from the national farmers union for the establishment of a royal commission to investigate the farm machinery industry and, if so, is the request under consideration?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Yes. This request was one of several recommendations included in the annual brief which the national farmers'
union presented to the government on March 1, 1965, which are presently under consideration.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-: Carleton):
1.	Has the final route been established for the trans-Canada highway in the counties of Victoria and Carleton in New Brunswick?
2.	What variation has been agreed on as compared with routing as determined as at March 31, 1963?
3.	Has the department of public works of the province of New Brunswick agreed to refund the federal portion of the cost of any part of the trans-Canada highway which has been or will be abandoned in the counties of Victoria and Carleton, province of New Brunswick?
4.	State percentage cost to be refunded by the provincial department of public works?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the trans-Canada highway in the abovenamed two counties for the fiscal year 1965-66?
6.	What is the estimated cost of each major bridge upon said highway in the abovementioned counties?
7.	What is the additional cost of highway via the new routing as compared with the routing as existing at March 31, 1963?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): 1. A revised route has been approved effective January 15, 1965.
2.	The designated route as at March 31, 1963 read in part "...thence via route 2-B to a new location to bypass the town of Hartland and rejoin route 2 in the immediate vicinity north of Hartland; thence along provincial highway number 2 through the villages of Peel, Stickney, East Florenceville, Bristol, Bath, Upper Kent, Kil-burn, Perth, Andover, Aroostook, to the town of Grand Falls .. The revision of January 15, 1965 reads in part: " ... thence via route 2B to a new location to bypass the town of Hartland; thence by new location northward to cross No. 2 and the Saint John river at Florenceville, thence northward along route No. 2 through the villages of Wicklow, Upper Wicklow, Clearview, River de Chute, Bairdsville to Andover; thence by new location to No. 2 north of Aroostook river, thence along No. 2 northward bypassing Grand Falls ...".
3.	Yes.
4.	All federal contributions toward sections which no longer form part of the approved route are to be refunded, representing 50 per cent of the cost of constructing those sections.
5.	The cost of construction in 1965-66 in these two counties will depend on the number

of provincial contracts and their scheduling, and is not known to this department.
6.	Grand Falls bridge, $1,727,300; Rapide de Femme bridge, $81,980; Aroostook river bridge, $770,300; River de Chute bridge, $50,000; Upper Guisiguit bridge, $70,000; Lower Guisiguit bridge, $70,000; Whitemarsh creek bridge, $50,000; Florenceville bridge, $1,000,000; Stickney brook bridge, $90,000; Hartland bridge, $1,471,520; Meduxnekeag river viaduct, $587,250; Bull creek bridge, $63,650; Eel river bridge, $400,000.
7.	Provincial preliminary engineering is noc sufficiently advanced to provide a cost estimate of the new route.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM

Mr. Langlois: With reference to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism (a) how much has it cost, so far (b) how many commissioners does it have (c) how many employees does it have under the jurisdiction of the commissioners (d) what is the daily rate allocated per commissioner (e) how much did each commissioner earn since its inception (f) what are the names of the commissioners?


John (Jack) Davis: I am informed by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism as follows: (a) Fiscal year 1963-64 (August 20, 1963 to March 31, 1964) $267,107. Fiscal year 1964-65 (April 1, 1964 to January 31, 1965) $1,157,533.
(b)	10 commissioners.
(c)	There are presently 125 full time employees under the jurisdiction of the commissioners. In addition there are at present 24 persons employed on a part time basis under various arrangements.
(d)	Commissioners receive the usual honorarium of $100 paid to royal commission members each day during which they are engaged in performing their duties as commissioners.
(e)	and (f)
	Fiscal	Fiscal
	year	year
	1963-64	1964-65
Rev. Clement Cormier	$ 3,600	$ 9,200A. D. Dunton	7,550	9,650Royce Frith	3,550	8,300Jean-Louis Gagnon	8,150	19,550Mrs. G. M. Laing	3,400	6,250Andre Laurendeau	10,200	14,600Jean Marchand	3,600	5,400J. B. Rudnyckyj	3,900	7,000F. R. Scott	4,000	9,100Paul Wyczynski	3,500	6,950
Questions



TRANSFER OF FEDERAL PROPERTIES, QUEBEC CITY

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Is it the intention of the national harbours board to transfer some of its waterfront properties, in the city of Quebec, to the federal Department of Public Works and, if so, what is the description of each of the properties involved and where is it located?
2.	Is it the intention of the federal public works department to retransfer such properties and, if so, what would be the conditions and terms of such retransfers?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the departments of transport and public works as follows:
1.	The national harbours board has under consideration a request from the P.W.D. to lease or acquire from the board such harbour property as is necessary for the site of a proposed dam at Quebec on the outlet to the St. Charles river. The effect of such a dam on harbour facilities is being studied by the board.
2.	If the transfer of property is agreed to, then public works proposes to arrange for the transfer of the site of the dam to the city of Quebec, provided the city assumes all responsibility associated with the dam.



BRITISH COLUMBIA BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

Mr. Mather: Has the government been advised that British Columbia has established a bureau of immigration similar to those of Quebec and Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Prime Minister's and privy council offices and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have not received advice from the province of British Columbia that it has established a bureau of immigration.



EFFECT OF TOBACCO ON HEART AND LUNGS

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare subsidized or carried out work, the purpose of which was to study the effect of tobacco as a cause of lung cancer and/or certain heart conditions and, if so, how much did such work cost?
2.	Has the department subsidized agencies which recommend giving up the use of tobacco and, if so, what amounts have been spent and to whom were grants made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Between 1956 and 1962, the Department of National Health and Welfare in co-operation with the Department of Veterans Affairs carried out a study to determine the relationship between tobacco smoking and disease including lung cancer

Questions
and heart conditions. This work was performed by personnel of the two departments and there were no external costs. The Department of National Health and Welfare has not subsidized outside work for this purpose.
2.	No agencies have been subsidized for the purpose of recommending that the use of tobacco be given up.



RELATION OF TOBACCO USE TO LUNG AND HEART DISEASES

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare taken cognizance of the work that has gone on throughout the world relating to the study of the part that tobacco plays In the development of lung cancer and/or certain heart ailments and, if so. has this work been found to be unconvincing?
2.	Is it the department's opinion that normal use of smoking tobacco may be considered to be free of danger?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Before initia-ing the Canadian smoking and health program the Department of National Health and Welfare and other health agencies in Canada thoroughly reviewed the evidence concerning the relationship between smoking and disease obtained from many studies carried out in several countries. These studies, as well as other studies reported since then, provide ample evidence that cigarette smoking is a serious health hazard.
2.	It is assumed that what is meant by "normal" is the "average" use of smoking tobacco. The evidence obtained from numerous studies of the relationship between smoking and disease that have been carried out in several countries is that there is no safe level of cigarette smoking though the hazards are proportionate to the number of cigarettes smoked per day and are greater for the heavy smoker than for the light smoker. Pipe and cigar smokers have a greater risk than non-smokers of developing certain diseases such as cancer of the mouth but the total death rate (all causes combined) of men who smoke only pipes or men who smoke only cigars and smoke less than five cigars every day is about the same as the total death rate of men who have never smoked.



HOUSING ACT LOAN APPLICATIONS, QUEBEC

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Under the National Housing Act, how many applications for loans were accepted in 1962, 1963 and 1964 for house construction (a) in Chapleau county (b) in the town of Amos (c) in the town of Senneterre (d) in the town of Chibougamau, and (e) in the town of Chapais?
2.	What was the total amount loaned each year in Chapleau county in 1962, 1963 and 1964?
3.	What amount was loaned to each of the above-mentioned towns in 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1, 2 and 3:
NHA loans approved in Chapleau federal electoral district and towns of Amos, Senneterre, Chibougamau and Chapais
Approved Lenders Amount
1962	Loans Units $ Chapleau federal
electoral district	-	-	-Town of Amos	-	-Town of Senneterre	-	-	-Town of Chibougamau	-	-	-Town of Chapais	-	-	-
Chapleau federal
electoral district	-	-	-Town of Amos	-	-	-Town of Senneterre	-	-	-Town of Chibougamau	-	-	-Town of Chapais	-	-	-
Chapleau federal
electoral district	-	-	-Town of Amos	-	-	-Town of Senneterre	-	-	-Town of Chibougamau	-	-	-Town of Chapais	-	-	-CMHC	Total NHAAmount	AmountLoans	Units	$	Loans	Units	$40	40	422,047	40	40	422,04710	10	113,192	10	10	113,1922	2	18,500	2	2	18,50027	27	280,786	27	27	280,786-	-	-	-41	41	447,813	41	41	447,81326	26	281,210	26	26	281,2104	4	37,200	4	4	37,2005	5	63,089	5	5	63,089* -	-	-	-	-27	27	336,319	27	27	336,31917	17	218,372	17	17	218,3726	6	63,644	6	6	63,644-	-	-	-



BENEFITS TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS

Mr. Groos: 1.	What were the benefits to which veterans of the Korean war were entitled and did this include educational benefits similar to those accorded to world war II veterans?
. 2. What steps were taken to promulgate the information concerning these benefits to the veterans concerned?
3.	What department was responsible for promulgating the information concerning these benefits?
4.	When did entitlement to these benefits expire?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. The benefits available to those Canadians who served in the special force in Korea were in general similar to those available to Canadian veterans of world war II, including vocational, technical and university training benefits.
2.	The Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of National Defence, arranged a pre-discharge interview for every member of the forces who was being discharged after service in Korea. These arrangements required service personnel officers to interview and counsel, prior to discharge, all personnel with regard to their rehabilitation benefits. Personnel counsellors were instructed by their headquarters to refer all dischargees to the Department of Veterans Affairs' office nearest their permanent residence.
General orders of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army and the Royal Canadian Air Force listed the benefits available to Canadian veterans of Korea. As these orders are repeated in unit orders, all dischargees would have had an opportunity to learn about rehabilitation benefits before their release from the services.
The first gratuity cheque mailed to dischargees included a notice which indicated the address of the D.V.A. district office nearest the veteran's home and recommended that the veteran visit that office for information regarding benefits.
In November, 1953 the Department of Veterans Affairs distributed a news release to the effect that benefits for those who served in Korea would be in line with those received by world war II veterans. In publicity concerning veterans' benefits issued by the department since then the eligibility or entitlement of the veterans of the Korean campaign has been included when applicable. The field staff of the department have taken advantage of many opportunities to speak to veterans and other groups, drawing attention to the
Questions
eligibility of those who served in Korea to the applicable benefits of the veterans charter.
3.	The Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of National Defence, assumed responsibility for promulgating the information concerning these benefits.
4.	Entitlement to vocational and technical training benefits expired on October 31, 1954, or 12 months after discharge from the special force. The expiry date for university training benefits was 15 months after the date of discharge from the special force. The expiry date for awaiting returns allowances was October 31, 1954, or 12 months from the date of discharge from the special force, or one year after the date of establishment under the Veterans Land Act, whichever was the latest.
For each of the above three benefits, the members of the regular forces who served on the strength of the special force and continued in the regular forces were deemed to have been discharged from the regular forces on October 31, 1956 and, where the veteran had been a patient or was receiving treatment in a hospital during any period within the 12 months after discharge, the period of eligibility was extended by the amount of time spent under treatment.
The expiry date for war service gratuity re-establishment credit, qualification under the Veterans' Land Act and eligibility to contract for veterans insurance will be* October 31, 1968.
Eligibility under the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act expired 10 years after the date of discharge from the special force and under the Unemployment Insurance Act it expired on June 30, 1955. Eligibility under the Reinstatement in Civilian Employment Act expired three months after discharge in Canada or four months after discharge overseas.
Eligibility for the treatment under the veterans treatment regulations for any disability existing at the time of discharge from the Korea force, provided that such treatment commenced within 30 days of discharge, expired one year after discharge. Treatment for any condition was furnished under these regulations for a maximum period of one year provided it commenced within one year of discharge from the Korea force or from treatment for a disability existing at the time of discharge. There is no expiry date for eligibility for treatment of pensionable conditions, nor for treatment of
124S4

Questions
non-pensioned disabilities on a means test basis under the veterans treatment regulations, nor for domiciliary care under those regulations. These veterans also are eligible for treatment under section 23 of the veterans treatment regulations which provides authority for the admission of a veteran to a departmental hospital where he is not eligible for free treatment from the department but is able and willing to pay the full cost of hospitalization. The department also treats, without time limit, recipients of war veterans allowances who gained eligibility through service in Korea.
There is no expiry date relating to war veterans allowances, pensions for disability or death or training under the pensioners training regulations.



IDENTICAL TENDERS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, WINNIPEG

Mr. Orlikow: Has the Minister of Justice received a communication from the city clerk of the city of Winnipeg bringing to his attention the fact that identical tenders for electrical equipment had been received and, if so, is an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act being contemplated?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Yes, the Minister of Justice has received such a letter and has referred the matter to the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act in order that he may consider whether formal inquiry is warranted. I am informed by the director that additional material has since been received from the city clerk of the city of Winnipeg which is also being considered. As the hon. member knows, the directors will take whatever action the statute requires but it is not the practice to give out information as to whether or not an inquiry is contemplated or in progress.



PAYMENTS TO MRS. BASKIN AND MRS. SAUVE

Mr. Cowan: What was the total amount of wages, salaries, emoluments, fees, etc. paid by the government of Canada, or any of its agencies, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during 1963 and 1964, to (a) Mrs. Gladys L. Baskin (b) Mrs. Jeanne Sauve?


Maurice Lamontagne: (a) I am informed by the chief treasury officer of the House of Commons that Mrs. Gladys L. Baskin received a total salary of $814.46 during 1963 and $4,160.92 during 1964.
(b) I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that because of the com-

petitive business in which it is engaged it has not been customary to require the corporation to disclose the amount of fees paid to individuals it may employ.



CALGARY INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE

Mr. Gundlock: 1.	Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration received a copy of a petition signed by 89 Alberta Indians, asking for an investigation of the Calgary Indian friendship centre and, if so, what was the nature of the petition and what speciac points did it wish to have investigated?
2.	Has the government provided any financial assistance to this friendship centre?
3.	Has the minister requested and received any recent reports on the operation of this centre from the citizenship branch office in Edmonton and, if so, what is the substance of these reports?
4.	Does the government intend to investigate the friendship centre through a federal-provincial board being established to handle friendship centre grants and, if so, what instructions have federal members of the board been given regarding the extent of the investigation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Yes, the petition states:	"We, the undersigned, are asking
federal officials who have given grants to the Calgary Indian friendship centre, to carry out an investigation of the whole situation namely: to investigate domination by non-Indians, lack of constructive programming for Indian teenagers, handling of funds, examine constitution, methods of counselling and an inability to cope with alcohol problems.
We, the Indians, feel that because of the large amounts of money granted the Indian centre, the governments should be aware of the centre's operations."
2.	Yes, a grant of $3,000 for non-capital expenditures.
3.	Yes, an objective viewpoint of the situation as it exists at the Calgary Indian friendship centre; provincial officials in co-operation with departmental officials will endeavour to facilitate mediation between the interested groups.
4.	The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has signed a cost-sharing agreement with the province of Alberta providing for the establishment of a friendship centre advisory committee composed of two representatives from the province, two representatives from the federal government and one from the centre benefiting from the agreement. One of the responsibilities of this committee is to review the operation and performance of the friendship centre and to make the necessary recommendations to the provincial as well as to the federal government. The agreement becomes effective on April 1, 1965.

The minister of public welfare for the province of Alberta, who has responsibility for the administration of this agreement at the provincial level, has announced that the problems raised by the Indians in Calgary would be investigated. Officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will do everything in their power to assist the provincial government in this investigation.



GUARDS AT ARMOURIES

Mr. Hales: 1.	When were orders issued that certain armouries across Canada were to be placed under constant guard?
2.	How many armouries were affected and in what provinces were they located?
3.	How many guards were employed?
4.	What is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer up to March I, 1965?
5.	Why has this order not been withdrawn?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No general orders were issued that certain armouries "across Canada" were to be placed under constant guard. However, on 21 February, 1964, an order was issued which applied to designated reserve units in the province of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.
2.	89-Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
3.	149 military personnel and 359 civilian watchmen.
4.	In addition to costs of military personnel which were met through normal budgeted defence primaries-$1,200,000.
5.	While the order in so far as the provision of guards is concerned, has not been completely rescinded it has been modified as circumstances permit. Alternate measures have been, and are being, taken to ensure the physical security of armouries generally and this has already resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of personnel employed in guarding these installations.



INCREASE IN MORTGAGE CEILING UNDER VETERANS LAND ACT

Mr. Kennedy: Is the government giving consideration to amending the Veterans' Land Act so as to increase the present ceiling on mortgages in order to compensate for the rise in cost of home construction, due to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: A review of veterans legislation, including the Veterans Land Act, is being conducted and any proposals for amendments will be brought forward at the appropriate time.
Questions



POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ESKASONI, N.S.

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What are the plans of the government for the construction of a post office building at the Eskasoni Indian reserve, Eskasoni, Nova Scotia?


René Tremblay: There are no plans for the construction of a post office building at the Eskasoni Indian reserve. The present post office at Eskasoni, N.S., which is in the category of offices where the postmaster is responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment, adequately serves the residents of the surrounding area.



MAIL CONTRACTS WITH C.P.R.

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Post Office Department had a contract with the C.P.R. under which the latter carried mail on trains Nos. 7 and 8; if so, what was the form of the contract, when was it entered into and what were the financial considerations?
2.	If not, what moneys did the post office pay to the C.P.R. in the last two fiscal years for mail service on C.P.R. trains Nos. 7 and 8?


René Tremblay: 1. No, there has been no formal contract. Mails are carried in trains 7 and 8 under terms and conditions outlined in order in council P.C. 1957-31/413 of 28 March 1957 covering transportation of mail by rail.
2. Total moneys paid to the C.P.R. by the Post Office Department for the transportation of mails on C.P.R. trains 7 and 8 between Montreal and Vancouver for the last two fiscal years is is follows: 1962-63, $3,478 -047.29; 1963-64, $3,409,193.90.
However, the above figures do not include mail service performed in C.P.R. trains 3 and 4 between Toronto and Sudbury, which is an integral part of the train 7 and 8 operation. The total moneys paid for the combined service in C.P.R. trains 3/7 and 4/8 for the two fiscal years is as follows: 1962-63 $3,802,328.29; 1963-64, $3,735,017.54.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING UNIVERSAL HEALTH PROGRAM

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from private citizens urging the immediate enactment of legislation to provide a comprehensive, universal health services program and, if so how many such representations have been received?


Maurice Lamontagne: In the past two years the Department of National Health and Welfare received 14

Questions
letters and 7,894 yellow printed cards (individually signed but in most cases giving no address of the sender).
Sixteen thousand seven hundred and thirty nine representations have been received by the Prime Minister's and privy council offices.



AVAILABILITY OF R.C.M.P. DOUKHOBOR RECORDS TO SIMMA HOLT

Mr. Douglas: 1. Did R.C.M.P. Commissioner George B. McClellan, make R.C.M.P. records on the Doukhobors available to Simma Holt, author of "Terror in the
2.	Did R.C.M.P. Commissioner George B. McClellan, authorize any of the following members of the R.C.M.P. to assist Simma Holt in the production of her book "Terror in the Name of God": Deputy Commissioner D. O. Forrest; Supt. C. B. Macdonell; Supt. Frank Spalding; Inspector Fred Joinson; Staff Sgt. Philip Boulton; Cpl. George Sproule; Cpl. Angus MacDonald; Const. James Trevor Woods; Sgt. Jack F. Betts; Staff Sgt. Wilfred G. Lambert; Cpl. Jack Flamank; Sgt. Alex Bordula; Const. Jack Randall; Cpl. Ronald J. Davidson; Staff Sgt. Neil Beaumont; Cpl. Gordon V. Rasmussen; Cpl. Alexander J. Sutherland; Sgt. John Henry Armstrong; Staff Sgt. J. A. Knox, Cpl. Wally Maguire; Cpl. Roger Brett?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No.
2. No.



Mr. Douglas: 1.	Did former R.C.MJ. Commissioner, Clifford W. Harvison, make R.C.M.P. records on the Doukhobors available to Simma Holt, author of "Terror in the Name of God"?
2.	Did former R.C.M.P. Commissioner Clifford W. Harvison, authorize any of the following members of the R.C.M.P. to assist Simma Holt in the production of her book "Terror in the Name of God": Deputy Commissioner D. O. Forrest; Supt. C. B. Macdonell; Supt. Frank Spalding; Inspector Fred Joinson; Staff Sgt. Philip Boulton; Cpl. George Sproule; Cpl. Angus MacDonald; Const. James Trevor Woods; Sgt. Jack F. Betts; Staff Sgt. Wilfred G. Lambert; Cpl. Jack Flamank; Sgt. Alex Bordula; Const. Jack Randall; Cpl. Ronald J. Davidson; Staff Sgt. Neil Beaumont; Cpl. Gordon V. Rasmussen; Cpl. Alexander J. Sutherland; Sgt. John Henry Armstrong; Staff Sgt. J. A. Knox; Cpl. Wally Maguire; Cpl. Roger Brett?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. During the investigations into the criminal activities of the Doukhobors and their subsequent trials, Mrs. Simma Holt was on the scene constantly in her capacity as a newspaper reporter, during which time she quite properly interviewed many members of the R.C.M. Police. Commissioner Harvison extended the cooperation of the R.C.M. Police and the Cana-
dian archives to Mrs. Simma Holt on the authority of the attorney general of British Columbia, the investigations into criminal activities of the Doukhobors being carried out by the R.C.M. Police in its capacity as the provincial police force for British Columbia directly responsible to the attorney general of that province.
2. Answered by No. 1.



POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, GLADMAR, SASK.

Mr. Wafson (Assiniboia): 1.	What was the cost of repairs and renovations to the building in Gladmar, Saskatchewan, to make it suitable for a post office?
2.	Who will pay for this work and material?
3.	What rent will the postmistress receive for supplying post office accommodation in Gladmar?


René Tremblay: Postmasters of post offices of the category of Gladmar are responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment and any improvements or repairs to premises are the responsibility of the postmaster.



DEVELOPMENT WORK, KEDGEMAKOOGE NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Crouse: 1.	What amount of money will be expended by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in developing Kedgemakooge national park in Nova Scotia in 1965?
2.	Will any development work be carried out by the department's staff or will public tenders be called for this project?
3.	On what date does the department anticipate development work will commence in the general park area?


Arthur Laing: 1. $645,000.
2.	At least half the money will be spent on contract work (following calls for tenders). The remainder will be by day labour.
3.	No specific date can be stated but it will be early in the new fiscal year.



CLOSING OF POST OFFICES ON SATURDAYS

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to close all post offices throughout Canada on Saturdays and, if so, when does it intend to do so?
2.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliameniary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1 and 2. As we
have already indicated to the hon. member, it is not the intention of the Post Office De-

partment to close all post offices throughout Canada on Saturdays for the following reasons: Generally speaking, it is our policy to permit smaller post offices and staff post offices without letter carrier delivery, a weekly half day closing in addition to being closed on Sundays. This is usually observed on the day best suited to the needs of the community, i.e., the day on which stores and other business places are closed.
In centres where letter carrier delivery service is provided the procedure followed in the observance of a weekly half day holiday may vary considerably. Delivery of mail of course, is provided on Saturdays. Postal stations in the major cities usually are closed on Saturday afternoon but there are some exceptions. The main post office generally provides service for a full six days per week but there are also some exceptions to this.
The responsibility for the hours of service rests with the district directors, the senior postal officials in the field, who arrange for service to be provided according to the needs of the community at large. This arrangement has proven to be most satisfactory, and we do not believe that any change should be made. Moreover, mails are received and despatched on Saturday and staffs must be on duty to process and deliver the mail. To do otherwise would cause delay in the delivery of mail matter.
In our opinion the time has not yet come when we can consider closing post offices on Saturday. To do so would mean that post offices would be closed on two consecutive days and this we believe would not constitute an adequate service to the public. Undoubtedly, it would result in considerable public protest.



COST OF DORION INQUIRY

Mr. Pigeon: What, to date, is the total cost (salaries, fees etc.) of the Dorion inquiry?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is $54,687.10. This amount represents total expenditures up to March 9, 1965.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS UNDER CROP INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Enns: 1. How many provincial governments have entered into agreements with the federal government under the newly amended Crop Insurance Act?
Questions
2. Which provinces have already made contractual arrangements, and which have indicated their intention to participate in crop insurance for the 1965 crop?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Three provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island are presently operating crop insurance programs under agreements with the federal government as provided for in the Crop Insurance Act. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have indicated that they will utilize the new reinsurance provisions of the act and necessary agreements to amend the presently existing agreements are under negotiation. Alberta has indicated it will operate a crop insurance program in 1965 and a covering agreement, including a provision for reinsurance, is under negotiation.
2. See answer to question 1.



FISHERIES DEPARTMENT LABORATORY, SHIPPEGAN, N.B.

Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleton):
1.	Has the Department of Fisheries purchased a building in the town of Shippegan, New Brunswick, to be used as a laboratory?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased, at what cost, and is the building large enough to meet the requirements?
3.	Has adjacent land been purchased to provide an extension for the above building?
4.	If so, state cost of same and from whom purchased?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Authority has been given the Department of Public Works to purchase land and the building thereon for laboratory and office use by the Department of Fisheries.
2.	(a) Herbert L. Haines; (b) $18,000; (c) No.
3.	Land referred to in No. 1 is adequate.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



DEPORTATION OF ANGELO MUSITANO

Mr. Bigg: 1.	When was Angelo Musitano, also known as Angelo D'Agostino, or Angelo DeAugustino of Hamilton taken into custody or detained for deportation?
2.	How many days after he was taken into custody was he en route to Italy?
3.	Was a special inquiry set up regarding deportation on the morning following his arrest or detention and was there any urgency for his deportation?
4.	Were the ordinary procedures provided under the law followed and, if not, for what reasons?
5.	When was the deportation order made, and when was it issued by the department?

Questions


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. He was taken into custody on March 1, 1965.
2.	Three days.
3.	Yes, a special inquiry was held on March 2, the morning after his apprehension. Since he had told the special inquiry officer that he had no wish to appeal and he had not appealed within the prescribed time, since he was a convicted murderer and had entered Canada illegally, since he was wanted for a second murder by the Italian government, since the Italian government was prepared to issue forthwith the necessary travel documents, and since transportation was immediately available, the department saw no reason why this man, who was considered by us to be dangerous and clearly inadmissible to Canada, should be kept in detention in Canada any longer than necessary.
4.	Yes, the ordinary procedures were followed.
5.	The deportation order was issued by the special inquiry officer on March 2, and deportation was effected on the evening of March 4.



STUDIES RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL LIQUIDITY

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Has Canada conducted any recent studies calculated to improve international liquidity?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	Has any recent study been given to the economic advantage to Canada of an increase in the price of gold?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1, 2 and 3. During the past year Canada has participated with other countries in two major studies calculated to improve international liquidity. The results of these studies are to be found in (a) the annual report of the international monetary fund for 1964, particularly chapters 3 and 4, and (b) the "Ministerial statement of the group of ten and annex prepared by deputies".
Both of these documents have received wide circulation. The main conclusion of immediate practical importance has been a recommendation by the board of directors of the international monetary fund that its resources should be enlarged by somewhat more than 25 per cent. The studies to which reference is made above covered many aspects of the role of gold in monetary affairs but they were not directed to the advantages or disadvantages of particular countries.



BALANCE OF PAYMENTS DEFICITS, CANADA AND U.S.

Mr. Matheson: In the last three years of record, how does Canada's balance of payments deficit on a per capita basis compare with that of the United States?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Canada's deficit on current account transactions over the past three years, in relation to the size of her population, has been as follows:
1962	1963	1964
Population
June, millions 18.57	18.90	19.24
Current account deficit,
$ million
Can.	-874	-557	-453Deficit per capita	- $47.06 -$29.47	-$23.54
United States statistics on their current account transactions are not exactly comparable. Their balance on goods, services, remittances and pensions over the past three years (which has been in surplus) is shown in relation to the size of their population below:
1961	1962	1963	1964
Population,
July 1, millions	183.76 186.66 189.37 191.23*
Surplus on goods, services, remittances and pensions,
$ billion, U.S. 7.4	6.7	7.1 n.a
Surplus per capita $ Canadian $40.27 $35.89 $37.49 n.a *March 1
Several definitions are used in official United States publications to measure the over-all balance of payments position, including capital movements, which has been in deficit. The following are shown both in total and per capita below:
1962	1963	1964
A.	Balance on all regular transactions, $ bn.
U.S.	-3.6	-3.3	-3.0
Balance per capita $U.S.	- $19.29 -$17.43 -$15.69

B.	Balance after
allowance for special government transactions $ bn. U.S. -2.2	-2.6	-2.8
Balance per capita $U.S.	-$11.79 -$13.73 -$14.64
C.	Change in U.S. holdings of gold and convertible currencies and in liquid liabilities after allowance for all special transactions,
$ bn. U.S.	-2.2	-1.9	-2.4
Balance per capita U.S.	-$11.79 -$10.03 -$12.55



PRICE FIXING IN COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS

Mr. McCuicheon: 1.	What steps has the department taken in regard to complaints concerning rumoured price fixing by companies engaged in the manufacture and supply of commercial fertilizers to the farm trade?
2.	Is any investigation being undertaken by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act informs me that he has received no recent complaints of alleged price fixing by manufacturers and suppliers of commercial fertilizers to the farm trade. I would suggest that if the hon. member or any other persons have any information which would indicate price fixing in this industry, they should bring it to the attention of the director in order that he may consider whether formal inquiry is warranted.
2. Answered by 1.



BENEFITS TO CIVIL SERVANTS TRANSFERRED TO CANADIAN ARSENALS

Mr. Beaule: Does the Minister of Defence Production intend to grant the 17 civil servants who were transferred from the civil service commission to Canadian arsenals at Valcartier and who have waived company benefits, the privileges enjoyed by employees of the public service as well as Messrs. F. T. Duchesnes, manager, Paul Dusseault, Georges Lemieux and Paul Bouchard, all of Canadian arsenals at Valcartier?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am advised by Canadian Arsenals Limited that this request has been under study for several months and it has now been decided,
Questions
as a company policy, that employees who were temporary civil servants at the time of their transfer to Canadian Arsenals Limited in 1946 will be granted leave benefits similar to those guaranteed to employees who were permanent civil servants at the time of their transfer to the company.


Mr. Smallwood: 1.	When was the Ookpik symbol adopted by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	What contracts, if any, have been entered into for the production and sale of Ookpik?
3.	Since Ookpik production was started by the Fort Chimo Eskimos, what has been the department's warehouse inventory of Ookpiks, month by month?
4.	What was the cost of promoting the Ookpik symbol?
5.	Have steps been taken to protect this symbol and have any legal actions been taken in that regard?
6.	What proceeds have been received by the department from the sale of Ookpik and what disposition has been made of these funds?


Arthur Laing: 1. The first use of the Ookpik was effected at the Canadian trade fair in Philadelphia in November, 1963. Notice concerning the adoption and use of Ookpik as a mark by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources appeared in the Trade Marks Journal No. 494, volume II, of March 11, 1964. The originators of Ookpik, the Fort Chimo co-operative association, have by agreement with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources received restricted commercial rights covering Ookpik.
2. The Fort Chimo co-operative association announced at a press conference on March 3, 1965, that it had entered into licence agreements for production and sale of Ookpiks with the following companies:	Canadian
Handicraft & Fur Mfg., Montreal; Ganz Bros. Toys Ltd., Toronto; Reliable Toy Company, Toronto; United Children's Wear Ltd., Montreal; Olympic Knit & Sportswear Ltd., Winnipeg; Ray-Knit Manufacturing Co., Toronto; Warrendon Manufacturers & Suppliers, Ottawa; Canada Medal & Token Company, Aurora; Ampeco Limited, Scarboro; Hedy Hill Handmade Jewellery, Toronto; Toronto Telegram News Service, Toronto; Lydia Fashions Incorporated, Montreal; Miss M. W. L. Arvi-sais, Ottawa; Messrs. Charters & Scally, Ottawa; Fursyn Mfg. Co. Ltd., Toronto; Mrs. C. Martin, St. Claude, Manitoba; Messrs. Tichnovich & Kennedy, Toronto.

Questions
3.	Sealskin Ookpiks are produced by the Fort Chimo co-operative association. The department provides warehouse space for use of the Fort Chimo co-operative association and for other Eskimo co-operatives. Details of the Fort Chimo co-operative association's monthly inventories have not been released by the co-operative; however, at the March 3 press conference the agent of the Fort Chimo co-operative association announced that the wholesale value of sealskin Ookpiks produced to date by Fort Chimo was approximately $30,000.
4.	The major promotion of Ookpik resulted from its use by the Department of Trade and Commerce as a symbol for the trade fair at Philadelphia in November 1963, and the spontaneous publicity which followed. Direct expenditures by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources on promotion amount to approximately $1,200. The department provided $2,585 in financial assistance to the co-operative for management and legal expenses during the initial development period.
5.	(a) The department has obtained trade mark and copyright protection on Ookpik. (b) The rights for negotiating commercial use of Ookpik have been assigned to the Fort Chimo co-operative association. The co-operative's solicitors have written letters to unauthorized users requesting them to desist from infringement, but no actions have been commenced to date.
6.	The department has received no funds from the sale of Ookpik. All revenues from sale of sealskin Ookpiks and from licence agreements are paid to the Fort Chimo cooperative association.
At the recent press conference the agent of the co-operative announced that gross revenue from licence agreements amounted to approximately $35,000.



DOWNGRADING OF POST OFFICE, STRATFORD, ONT.

Mr. Monieilh: Has the post office at Stratford, Ontario been downgraded from grade 12 to grade 11 and, if so, for what reason?


René Tremblay: Yes, effective 1 February 1965. Prior to 1 April 1964, postal revenue was considered the most important factor in determining the grade of a staff post office. It was on this basis of revenue that the Stratford post office was raised to a grade 12 staff post office in 1959. However, as a result of close comparative studies, the department reached the conclusion that this system resulted in numerous inequitable gradings, due largely to the fact that revenue is not a completely reliable indication of the responsibilities of, and the work actually performed at a post office.
A new system of grading was therefore developed based primarily on staffing requirements of the office. This approach is considered more appropriate as it provides a better guide line in establishing the work load and the degree of administrative responsibility for provision of postal service to the public and for the various mail processing operations.
Under this revised system the Stratford post office has not been able to meet the minimum requirements for a grade 12 staff post office and has been below the minimum for several years. Therefore, this office has been reclassified as a grade 11 staff post office.
The change in the classification of the office does not in any way affect the postal service at Stratford. The only result is a change in the classification of the positions of the postmaster and the assistant postmaster when these positions are vacated by the present incumbents. The position of postmaster has in fact become vacant through promotion and consequently has been advertised as postmaster 11 to reflect the change in the grade of the office. The change in the classification of the assistant postmaster will similarly become effective but only when it is vacated by the officer presently occupying the position.



IMPORTS OF FISHING TACKLE

Mr. Webb: 1.	From what countries does Canada import fishing tackle, lures, etc.?
2.	By country, what is the Canadian value of these imports?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2.

Motions for Papers
Value of Canadian imports, by countries, of fishing tackle, lures, etc., January to October, 1964 (latest figures available).
Import
class
number	Description
832-84 Fishing rods and parts
832-85 Fishing tackle and parts n.e.s., for sportsmen's use
Country	Value $'000
United Kingdom	19
France	2
Germany West	2
Portugal	7
Czechoslovakia	5
Japan	85
United States	326
Total	446
United Kingdom	358
Finland	65
France	263
Germany West	60
Italy	5
Norway	54
Spain	7
Sweden	63
Switzerland	5
Hong Kong	25
Japan	789
Australia	24
United States	1,875
Total	3,593



VETERINARY SURGEONS COMING TO CANADA FROM U.K.

Mr. Ormiston: How many veterinary surgeons have emigrated from Great Britain to Canada since January, 1955?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Separate statistics on the admission of veterinary surgeons are available only from 1962 and since that time, 28 have migrated from Great Britain to Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Matheson: What organizations have made submissions to the Department of Justice during the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, on the subject of hate literature and/or genocide?
Return tabled.


EGG IMPORTS
Mr. Ricard: 1. How many dozens of fresh and frozen eggs and
pounds of powdered eggs were imported into Canada during the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	From what countries were these eggs or egg products imported?
3.	What were the prices paid in each case?
4.	Was the production of these products subsidized in their country of origin?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 231 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning intradepartmental materials and the usual reservation concerning the consent of the provincial government. Will Your Honour please call motion No. 187. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 187-Mr. Brewin:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence
[Stage Direction]
Question of Privilege
exchanged during the past year between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general or other provincial ministers regarding methods of amending the constitution of Canada; and also for other papers and documents prepared for and presented to the meeting held in October between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is transferred for debate at the request of the government.



MOVE OF FORESTRY LABORATORIES TO SAULT STE. MARIE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 231-Mr. Addison:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged during 1964-65 between the Minister of Forestry and the Ontario minister of lands and forests and the attorney general of the province of Ontario with regard to the proposed move of the federal Department of Forestry research laboratories from Maple and Richmond Hill to Sault Ste. Marie; and also for any other papers, reports and documents in the possession of the government prepared with regard to this matter.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Villeneuve rising on a question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The house is seized with a question of privilege now, and I understood from the arrangement agreed to at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon that we would have the half hour question period and immediately thereafter we would return to the question of privilege raised yesterday. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is another question of privilege, it is not the same thing at all.


Mr. Speaker:: We should proceed with one question of privilege at a time. Is the house now ready to begin the half hour question period?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of Ihe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether the government, having had the benefit of 12 hours' rest since the occurrences of yesterday, has decided to make a strategic withdrawal from the unconstitutional position it took yesterday in respect of the motion on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce. Will not the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, after reconsideration overnight, come to the determination that there should be a retreat in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the question in the form in which it has been put.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should put the question in a much simpler form. Are you going to back down from the unconstitutional position taken yesterday by the government?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister or to the house leader. Has the government overnight been able to solve the problem of getting the balance of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special joint committee on Bill C-136 translated and printed so that we might now proceed with the consideration of Bill C-136?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question in the form in which it has now been put certainly should be answered. It is unfortunate that it was not put in that form in the beginning, because it gives me an opportunity to make a short statement on this matter which will in effect be a reply to my hon. friend.


Mr. Gregoire:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has a statement to make on the matter would it not be more normal if he made it when we come back to the question of privilege, instead of making it on the orders of the day?
We have no objection to the Prime Minister making his statement, but he should do so when we revert to the question of privilege, which was not raised during the question period which lasts only an hour on Wednesday. We would like to discuss this matter later.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to answer the question, and in view of its importance the answer may be a little longer than might otherwise be necessary. I hope my hon. friends will give me the opportunity of dealing with the situation in this way, as an answer to the question.
The answer is that we appreciate, as I know all members of the house appreciate, the importance of the points raised yesterday and the necessity of keeping on an absolute basis of legal and practical equity in Canada the two official languages in respect of all proceedings of this house and its committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are practical difficulties, of course, but we are making progress in overcoming them and in the application of this essential principle to all committee work. Those practical difficulties were underlined in the discussions we had yesterday, but notwithstanding the accelerated procedure and priority given to the translation of the proceedings and evidence before the pension committee, that translation has not yet been completed. We were informed yesterday that in spite of the efforts being made it will take a few weeks before that translation can be completed.
I appreciate the point made, that the translation of that evidence into French should be in the hands of the members before we proceed with important legislation of this kind. I think we are all in agreement in that regard. We have been making the kind of progress toward that objective in the last few years which has not been achieved in the 50, 60 or 70 years before the last few years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said the last few years, Mr. Speaker, not the last two years. When these facts were brought to my attention yesterday 20220-790
Inquiries of the Ministry in relation to the time that would be required, I instructed those concerned in the government to put aside all other forms of translation work, except Hansard and essential work of that kind, and give top and exclusive priority to the translation of the rest of the minutes of the committee, working around the clock and during the week end.
I hope the permanent arrangements will make this kind of emergency procedure unnecessary in the future. This is the first time this has been done, but I might point out to the house that we are very glad to break new ground in this respect, as in other respects; and by this crash action-


Mr. Mandziuk:: Crashed again?


An hon. Member:: Sixty days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, but I am having some difficulty in making myself heard. I hope the hon. member who asked the question can hear my answer.


Mr. Starr:: Why don't you give him an answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a result of this action now taken the translation should be completed in a few days, by Monday or early next week. I hope this type of special action will not have to be repeated, because it means sacrificing translation work for departments of government and we do not want to do that except in an emergency.
I hope, in view of this, that clause 1 can be completed today and this bill can then be reprinted. If that can be done, Mr. Speaker, and indeed whether or not it is done, I give the house the assurance that third reading of the bill will not be called until the translation of the minutes into French is available to all hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Another run for cover.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's statement concerns especially our group-


Mr. Valade:: It concerns everyone.


David Réal Caouette: It is intended especially for us. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not object particularly to the carrying of clause 1 in Bill No. C-136. However, the Prime Minister will agree with me that if clause 1 is carried and we wait for the third reading, each of us will have the right to speak only at a given time, and we will be restricted by the rules of the house; we have so many things to say on this bill.

Inquiries of the Ministry
We feel that it our privilege to discuss clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 as long as we have questions to ask.
According to the Prime Minister we will have the translation next Monday.
Mr. Speaker, I have never made election promises but I have heard many.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: I have often heard the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition make some.
We cannot promise anything. We do not make promises to our electors and you can be sure that we will not promise the government anything.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister make inquiry as to whether the regular work of translation or the accelerated work of translation of this report was set aside by certain requirements of his ministers, who wanted their work given priority?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will make this inquiry, but I have no reason to believe the statement made by my hon. friend is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, I asked him a question; I did not make a statement.


Mr. Douglas:: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be very helpful to the Chair if we could just proceed in the ordinary manner. I am going down the front rank. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It
seems to me that the Prime Minister's statement would more properly have been discussed when we came to the motion.


An hon. Member:: You asked for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member asked a simple question; he did not ask for a full statement.


An hon. Member:: You do not want the answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The statement could have been made when the question came up, but since the Prime Minister has made this lengthy statement I think I should be permitted to ask him if the government, in view of his statement, would be willing to leave

the Canada pension plan at its present stage on the order paper until Monday, when he expects to have the complete translation. In return I understand that those who have moved the question of privilege would be prepared to withdraw it, which I think would relieve the Chair of a very difficult situation.
There is certainly no doubt about it; many of us on this side of the house feel there is a definite question of privilege, and we would have to register our position in that regard. I ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to leave this matter of the Canada pension plan on the order paper at its present stage of development, if in return the question of privilege were withdrawn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you, sir, are in a position to make a ruling on this matter at once, as you have already indicated. I understood that yesterday there was a certain urgency, a certain desire to get this ruling cleared away. If my hon. friend thinks it is the feeling of the house that we should put this item off in its present form until Monday and go ahead with other business as from today, I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance.


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to deal with another question-


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am assuming that if the Minister of Finance wishes to rise at this time it must be something quite important. I have not a clue as to what it is, but I am sure he will take his own responsibility.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is not important, Mr. Speaker; I merely wished to reply to a question that was put by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. As long as I have the opportunity to do so before the question period is over-


Gilles Grégoire: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair decides in this house, and if I decide to recognize the Minister of Finance I think that is within my prerogative.


David Réal Caouette: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yesterday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say in passing that surely you do not expect the Speaker to act like a schoolmaster. Hon. members must assume their own responsibility as I am assuming mine.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Secretary of State with regard to translation.
Could he tell us whether it is true that the bureau for translations is paying certain employees of the secretary of state or external affairs departments, or both, 5 cents a word, which would be what is preventing his department from recruiting translators who could devote themselves exclusively to translating for the Canadian government?


Maurice Lamontagne: I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the gold market and the raising of money in the New York market by Canadians. The policy followed by France in converting U.S. dollar balances into gold has recently been the subject of much public comment, but it would not be appropriate or useful for me to express any opinion on it. I can, however, assure the Leader of the Opposition that Canadian officials are in close touch with officials abroad regarding the gold market and other international financial markets.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked whether Canada had agreed to put new limitations on money raising in New York. Hon. members will recall that after the United States administration announced its proposal for an interest equalization tax in July, 1963 discussions were held between the United States and Canadian governments which resulted in an agreement, published on July 21, 1963, under which new issues of Canadian securities were exempt from the tax. The Canadian government, for its part, made it 20220-7901
Inquiries of the Ministry clear that it was not its desire or intention to increase Canada's foreign exchange reserves through the proceeds of borrowing in the United States.
Last month, shortly before President Johnson delivered his message of February 10 to the United States congress in which he specifically reaffirmed the Canadian exemption, the Canadian government reaffirmed the position it had taken in 1963 regarding the level of its exchange reserves. There is no other agreement with regard to Canadian borrowings in the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that when you come to add up the minutes spent on this question hour you will be somewhat lenient, due to the shortness of the period today and because of the time taken up with lengthy answers to questions. My question relates to another crisis area in the world, other than the one in this house, where some 1,100 Canadians are in the front lines. I am referring to Cyprus. With the situation becoming more critical each day, and in view of the meeting of the United Nation security council today with regard to Cyprus, what word does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have for us?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has said, the security council is meeting this afternoon to consider the renewal of the mandate of the force, which has been in existence now about a year. It will meet against the background of the situation that prevails, particularly at Lefka in Cyprus, a stituation that is causing considerable concern. Beyond that there is nothing to add at the moment, except that in answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Calgary North the other day I may say we have made representations to the secretary general, and our high commissioner has been instructed to take a similar course vis-a-vis the government of Cyprus.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the report that some 45,000 troops have been built up, many of them from the regular army of Greece, and that there is actual fighting taking place at this time, which is certainly something very serious. Is there no comment about that?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that the facts as stated by my hon. friend have been confirmed. I doubt very much that the figure he has used represents the actual situation. We do know, of course, that regulars from one of the neighbouring countries were brought to the island six months ago. We do know that contrary to the resolution of March 4, 1964 of the security council, and the notification agreement between the United Nations and Cyprus, some heavy equipment supplied by the Soviet union was received by the government of Cyprus. Beyond that I do not want to go until I have heard the results of this afternoon's meeting.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us any information about the reported presence off Cyprus of a Turkish task force with the suspected purpose of landing to relieve a Turkish community? Also, if such a landing does take place is he in a position to tell us what are the instructions to the Canadian troops in Cyprus, in view of the heavy build up of weapons on the part of Greek Cypriots?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the evidence before the government does not support the statements made in the press. The existence of Turkish forces reported to us seems to be in smaller numbers. This is not to underplay the situation which may be presented at this time by both communities for one reason or another, particularly in the light of the meeting in the security council which takes place this afternoon. I can add that the secretary general has said that in any event the circumstances do not warrant a reduction in the total numbers of the United Nations force itself.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: As a
supplementary question, in view of the reports in the press mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer, of very much increased military activity by Greek and Turkish forces in the vicinity of Cyprus, and claims by the countries concerned that these are normal and not extraordinary military manoeuvres, could the minister tell the house whether the UN commander was informed beforehand that these activities were contemplated?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question directly, but I would express the greatest surprise if the United Nations commander had been informed.


Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of these disturbing events in the Cyprus area, and the question of Viet Nam which has been much in the news and in the house during the last week, not to mention a letter from the leader of the opposition in Ghana and the events in Malaysia; and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon that debate on the Canada pension plan bill be put off three or four days, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs not agree that a debate on foreign affairs could be held for one day so we could hear a complete, thought out, well prepared, lucid statement from him on these various situations, and so they could be discussed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the growing indications that there might be military intervention either by Turkey or Greece, and the very difficult situation around Lefka as a result of which Turkey is alleged to have threatened air attacks, is the Canadian government requesting any revision of the status of forces agreement before we in turn agree to extend the mandate and the supplying of Canadian troops for the peace keeping operation? It seems to me we have a responsibility to give every protection to Canadian troops, and that some revision of the status of forces agreement is warranted under the circumstances.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of National Defence and I have naturally considered this matter. I am not prepared to say at this time what is the purpose of the increased activity on the part of both neighbouring countries. I have indicated, or have implied, that this movement may not be unrelated to the fact that security council is meeting this afternoon on this matter.
I do not think I can responsibly go beyond that at the moment. The United Nations force has been on the island now for almost a year. It has faced very serious situations; but I think as we look back on the year; in spite of the lack of authority on occasions, in spite of legitimate criticisms which have been made about the authority of the force, we would all conclude that the United Nations force on that island has served the interests of peace in a way which causes all of us to be very

grateful. It is not a question of changing the status of forces agreement but of seeking to improve the authority of the force itself. This is something which comes within the scope of the directives given to the force by the secretary general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister asked the secretary general of the United Nations to secure from Greece and Turkey some assurance that there will be no military intervention if Canada continues to play her role in the peace keeping force?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Not only have we approached the secretary general, but we have also been in touch with the governments concerned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask what was the reply?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The secretary general indicated that he has already taken this course himself. He is doing so again I believe in the security council this afternoon. I may say that at the recent NATO ministerial meetings this was one of the subjects which were vigorously discussed with both Greece and Turkey.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from one of those in Ghana who had been in prison without trial for more than two years, regarding the imprisonment without trial and without benefit of habeas corpus of about 1,000 political prisoners in that country.
I recognize immediately the delicate nature of this matter, but in view of the interest shown by Canadians in the denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the United States in the last few days has the Prime Minister been in touch with the President of Ghana through the high commissioner from Ghana with a view to pointing out that this type of injustice is not in keeping with the responsibilities of commonwealth membership?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read in the press that the letter to which the right hon. gentleman refers has been sent to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and that copies have been sent to other commonwealth prime ministers. I have not received such a letter, or had not up to the end of this morning. If and when
Inquiries of the Ministry
it comes I shall have to decide what I should do.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether other prime ministers of the commonwealth have communicated with Canada in this regard, and whether Canada does not feel in the circumstances that on its own initiative it should direct the nation's voice to Ghana in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have had no communication from any other commonwealth government on this matter as yet.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the gratuitous lecture which the leader of the New Democratic party saw fit to give to the United States over the week end, could the minister assure the house that his department will co-operate completely with the new ministry of Indian and Metis affairs to be established in the province which the New Democratic party leader administered for 17 years, to deal with a situation which Premier Thatcher this week compared with the treatment of negroes in Selma, Alabama-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper? In view of the feeling which presently exists I should like the consent of the house to call upon the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona, who has an important question to raise.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I rise on a question of privilege to point out to hon. members of this house that there are lovely patches of green showing here and there about the chamber as a reminder that this is a great day for the Irish and for all of us who are of Irish extraction.
I do not want the day to pass without wishing everyone a very happy St. Patrick's day or without repeating that old Gaelic cry "Erin go bragh".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister recommend to his cabinet, or does he think that the government should accept the suggestion made by the authorities of McGill University to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, to the effect that the bureau for translations should be made a government department under a deputy minister who would have the necessary authority to direct all the translation work of the government, with a view to avoiding a situation such as the one we are facing now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very interesting suggestion. It was made, of course, to a royal commission, but I have noticed it and I think it is one which should be considered.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be wise to ask the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to make an inquiry into the federal administration before going outside the country in order to find out what the situation is?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the house whether an investigation is being held into the airplane crash which occurred this morning, as a result of which the crew of three and the five passengers aboard this aircraft bound from Halifax, lost their lives?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure everyone has heard with deep sorrow of this tragedy, and I can assure hon. members that a full investigation will be carried out. I should like to commend the R.C.M.P. on getting to the scene so quickly. 
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. There was a statement made in committee by counsel for the maritime commission. Will the minister examine this statement for contempt of parliament?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The matter is before the committee, and it is up to the committee to deal with the statement of counsel.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does not the minister accept responsibility, inasmuch as the legislation was set up by this house? The statement made by counsel-not by the trustees but by counsel on behalf of the trustees-should at least show some respect for the legislation which was set up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would think that the counsel and the trustees respect the legislation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. In view of the discussion yesterday and today the Chair is in a little doubt as to what the house would like to proceed with at the moment. In my opinion, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister, the basic subject matter of contention has been settled and at the present time there is no question of privilege before the house. But I should like some direction from, perhaps, the leader of the house or someone else as to whether we should now proceed with the ordinary business before us.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: In the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam there was a reference which I took to mean that the question of privilege had been disposed of or would be withdrawn. If that is the situation I am quite prepared to indicate the business to be proceeded with.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a while ago made a statement which we deemed very wise and logical when he said that in his opinion the debate on clause

1 or on any other clause of the Canada pension plan should not be continued as long as we have not received the French version of the committee's reports.
I believe that an important event happened yesterday afternoon, and it was brought about by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron). Due to the fact that everyone seems to agree that this is a question of privilege, I believe that the people of this country would appreciate the house adopting unanimously the motion which is tantamount to the statement which was made by the Prime Minister a short while ago. The House of Commons, by a unanimous vote, would be approving the motion presented by the hon. member for Beauce and the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister, because in my opinion that statement is more or less an acceptance of the motion presented by the hon. member for Beauce.
In my opinion, a unanimous vote in favour of this motion would be in order at this moment.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to wholeheartedly support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) obviously said yes to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker); or is the Prime Minister going to retreat on this issue?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the previous remarks and those made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) are being placed on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Take them off. You have all kinds of power. You have taken everything else off.


George James McIlraith: The situation is that the
question has caused concern to all hon. members, and the suggestion made earlier in the afternoon, during the question period, seemed a reasonable one to meet the difficult situation confronting the house.


An hon. Member:: Confronting the Liberal part only.


George James McIlraith: That suggestion, if I understood the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) correctly-and here I am necessarily
Business of the House
relying on the simultaneous translation and have some doubt about some of the words the hon. member used-was rejected by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


George James McIlraith: There seems to be uncertainty about it, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: Why don't you have a caucus?


George James McIlraith: If the position is, as was stated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam (Mr. Douglas), that the motion by way of privilege is not being proceeded with, then I would call the opting out legislation. But I find myself in some difficulty understanding exactly what the position is.


Michael Starr: We are having some difficulty understanding you, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to suggest a way out of the impasse, which seems to me the right procedural way and the thing to do at the present time, namely that we proceed with the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the government house leader wants to understand, he had better stop chatting with his colleague, the Minister of Transport.
The suggestion we made is this. In view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has agreed, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), to put off any debate on clause 1, on a motion for third reading, until we have received the French version of the proceedings of the special joint committee on the pension plan, and in view of the fact that this corresponds exactly to the purpose of the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Beauce, I think that the house should consider it is an honour and a responsibility to vote unanimously for the motion presented by the hon. member for Beauce, so that the whole country will know that the House of Commons intends to respect the rights of bilingualism in the parliament of the nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that I could bring some light into a rather confused situation; at least it seems confused to me. The basic question is whether or not a bill in the House of Commons can be discussed, assuming that the evidence has not been completely finished in its English and French printing. I have made a search of the records since confederation, and there is

Business of the House
no case that says that a bill in the House of Commons which is up for discussion cannot be proceeded with until the evidence has been filed. If we were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), emotionally pleasing as it may be, nevertheless procedurally in my opinion it would be completely wrong, and would establish a very bad precedent.
It seems to me that hon. members are called into the house to give their own opinions on matters or bills before the house, and never has it, so far as I am aware, been established that we must wait for all the evidence, whether in English or in French, to be filed before we can proceed with the discussion of a bill. On the contrary, the evidence given before a committee forms part of the overall record which in due course is filed. Assuming for example it was given all in French and printed in French, there is no reason to hold up the discussion of a bill until the English translation is received.
I do urge hon. members to take into consideration the fact that if we were to adopt the motion which the hon. member would like to present, and which I think is completely out of order, we would be establishing a very dangerous principle and would be hamstringing ourselves for the future.
Bight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, no one wants to hold up the business of the house but, as Your Honour saw fit to state that there was no case since confederation in which the recognition of the equality of both languages-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is insulting the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: -had resulted in a bill being held up pending translation, I would point out this, that the arguments used yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) were, if I may be allowed to say so, entirely inaccurate. They took the stand that it was a question of order. I have read the cases, as Your Honour has, and I would point out a case in 1910, referred to in the Journals of the house of April 6, 1910, in which the Speaker said this:
Section 133 of the British North America Act provides that members may speak in either French or English and that both those languages shall be used in the records and Journals of this house. The Votes and Proceedings contain the French version of the report of the committee, but not the evidence. Whether or not it would be proper to

stop all proceedings on this bill now is largely a matter of policy for the house to decide and not a question of order for the Speaker. This evidence is now being translated and will be printed in the French language and duly distributed, but a decision to stop all proceedings until this is done would practically mean that this bill could not be proceeded with this session. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to take that stand, seeing-
And he said what Your Honour said just a moment ago:
-that I have found no precedent since confederation bearing on the point of order.
The matter then came to a vote on the question that the ruling of the Speaker be not sustained, and the ruling of the Speaker was sustained. I rise, Mr. Speaker, merely for the purpose of saying, so there will be no mistake in the years ahead, that the decision is not one that can be rendered by Your Honour as a question of order, but is rather one of policy to be decided by the house. Having come to that point, if we look over the records of yesterday we find a tremendous change in the thinking of those sitting opposite in regard to the stands taken yesterday by various representatives supporting the government, including two ministers.
Inasmuch as the government has overnight taken its place on the penitent's seat, I feel that the ends and purposes for which the motion in question came before the house have been met. In other words, we have now established something beyond peradventure that was denied yesterday by the government and its ministers in the presence of the Prime Minister, but today is accepted by the Prime Minister.
Under these circumstances and inasmuch as it is a matter of policy, if the hon. member for Beauce will now withdraw his question of privilege I am sure that the purposes of the house will have been attained, for after all what was averred yesterday by the government has been departed from today and the view of the opposition parties accepted. That certainly must now be the view of this house. While the matter is one that would ordinarily be decided by Your Honour, having in mind that the position has been established and that the government has completely reversed itself I think we can all join together and say that unanimity has been attained.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that your ruling is not to consider what was the subject of yesterday afternoon's debate as a question of privilege, even though an expert in parliamentary procedure

referred to several standing orders of the House of Commons. At page 12405 of the House of Commons Debates the following argument was submitted after the Speaker had asked if the matter could be taken as a question of privilege related to a right or privilege of a member of the house.
And yet under section 74-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member has already spoken at length on this matter. I am prepared to give a decision but I would urge the house to accept the solution that appears to be the desire of everyone in the house, namely that inasmuch as the desire of the hon. member for Beauce has been attained we should proceed to get on with the business of the house.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, dealing specifically with your question, the fact that almost all hon. members considered it a matter of principle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There was no decision. I want that clearly understood by the member. It was a suggestion to try to help the house at this particular stage of the proceedings. Inasmuch as it seems to me that it is the general desire of the house to get on with the business, may I suggest that the house accept my suggestion that orders of the day be now proceeded with.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I raised that question of privilege in the form of a question and today, the purpose is to have a strict application of the rules. In that case, I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The standing orders apply to the hon. member just as much as to everyone else and he has already spoken three times when he is entitled to speak only once. If I may say so, I suggest for the last time that we proceed with the business before the house and try to get something done.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that orders of the day be proceeded with, does it mean that the motion is withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the house? Will the house resume the debate on the pensions plan or will it take
Business of the House
another matter of business until we get the committee proceedings in French?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the Prime Minister suggested the bill be suspended until Monday next, that by that time the evidence both in English and French will have been translated and I assume filed in the house and, that being so, that there would be no question of privilege before the house and we should proceed with the business of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we be clear about this? Do I take it that the question of privilege still stands and will be raised when the measure comes before us next week, or is Your Honour ruling on it now? If Your Honour is ruling on it now I would like to say something before Your Honour gives your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I said three times that I have made no ruling but perhaps I have made too many suggestions. The house is master of its own affairs but I once more suggest that we consider that there is no question of privilege before the house at the moment because the objective of the proposed motion has been attained, and that we proceed with the business before the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the only way Your Honour can say there is no question of privilege before the house is if those who have raised the question are prepared to withdraw it. I made the suggestion, and I still press it, that if the government is prepared to leave the legislation on the order paper at its present stage and not proceed with it until such time as the evidence before the committee has been printed in French I would hope that those who moved this motion would withdraw it, and therefore there would be no question of privilege. However, if they do not withdraw their motion, then it seems to me that the question of privilege is before the house, and on that basis I think we should state our opinions with reference to the matter of privilege.
Your Honour's suggestion so far has been to the effect that this motion of privilege has to do with whether or not the house can proceed with a piece of legislation until the evidence before a committee has been translated and printed. I suggest to Your Honour that in the view of many of us there is a totally different question involved. It is not whether the house can proceed to deal with a piece of legislation until all the evidence

Dominion-Provincial Relations has been printed, but whether it is proper that it should have been printed in one language and have been available to those who speak English while at the same time not being available in French to those who speak French. Had it not been available in either language it seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There has been very considerable discussion and I do think that the Chair has had the advantage of a great many opinions which have been highly interesting and useful. May I suggest that the whole matter be deferred until Monday and that we get on with the business before the house.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARED PROGRAMS

Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on second reading of this bill I think it might be useful to review briefly the approach the government has taken in this important field of shared cost and conditional grant programs.
Shared cost programs have been evolved over the years to meet a variety of specific needs such as the provision of basic welfare services, basic health services, requirements for economic development and, in some cases, problems which, although temporary or local, were beyond the capacity of local resources. This approach has occasioned a two fold benefit. The provinces obtained the financial assistance that was necessary to enable them to provide such services and at the same time it ensured a basic standard of services across Canada. The value of this approach in meeting these needs is evidenced by the number, scope and size of the current programs. In the current year such programs are expected to involve federal transfers to the provinces of more than $900 million, a substantial measure of assistance to governments whose level of expenditures has been rising rapidly in recent years.
Nevertheless, we have now reached a point in our national development when we should take a searching look at these arrangements which have, in a sense, grown like Topsy over the past 20 years or so. There are several reasons for doing this. For ex-

ample, a good many of these programs, and certainly the largest of them, fall primarily within provincial jurisdiction, and perhaps that should be emphasized. Most of these programs fall within areas for which, in the normal course, the provinces are responsible. Second, one of the fundamental problems which gave rise to these programs-that of unequal fiscal capacity among the various provinces-has been overcome to a considerable extent by the present system of equalization payments. Third, certain programs, such as hospital insurance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances, are mature and well established, and it is inconceivable that they would be discontinued by any government. Finally, conditional fiscal transfers have reached such a magnitude that one must consider the wisdom of continuing to separate responsibility for administering and spending large sums of money from the responsibility of raising the revenues. In the light of these and other developments which I enumerated in my speech on the resolution the case for continued federal participation in established joint programs is not as strong as it used to be.
These are some of the factors which will have to be considered in the long range, cooperative study by federal and provincial governments which was launched last year. Pending the conclusion of these deliberations, it seems reasonable to provide for an interim or transitional arrangement.
The objectives which parliament is being asked to approve in this bill were set out in the Prime Minister's letter to the provincial premiers dated August 5, 1964. It is printed as an appendix to Hansard of September 10. In summary, the objectives described by the Prime Minister are these:
Under the interim arrangements, a province would maintain its present obligations in respect of programs from which it has contracted out.
In particular, the province would continue to provide the services under the program and furnish an accounting of expenditures to the federal government.
Compensation to a province which contracts out would take the form either of an equalized abatement of federal personal income tax subject to adjustment-I should like to emphasize that these are subject to adjustment at the end of the period-or of cash payments, depending on the nature and size of each program.

The length of the interim period would also vary depending on the circumstances of each program.
As the Prime Minister stated in his letter, it is not the intention of this legislation to make permanent provision for the provinces to assume the entire responsibility for joint federal-provincial programs. Permanent arrangements must await the deliberations and recommendations of the tax structure committee which was directed by the October federal-provincial conference to report, among other things, on "The general policy to be followed in respect of shared cost programs during the period 1967-72".
The tax structure committee has been instructed to report to the resumed conference in early 1966 and its recommendations will form the basis for discussions which, I hope, will lead to arrangements that parliament and the provincial legislatures will consider to be more suitable in terms of today's needs. The legislation presently before the house would simply authorize agreements of a temporary nature for a transitional or interim period.
The bill specifies the duration of the interim period for each of the programs which the government of Canada proposes to include in these contracting-out arrangements. It was the government's wish that the transitional period would end with the termination of the present fiscal arrangements with the provinces on March 31, 1967, so that any new approach to shared cost programs could be integrated with whatever new fiscal arrangements are devised for the next quinquennial period. There are however certain joint programs which, for various reasons, do not lend themselves to this arrangement, and a longer interim period has had to be accepted in such cases.
The programs for which a longer interim period is provided in this bill are: hospital insurance; the special welfare program which consists of old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances and the base load or welfare component of unemployment assistance; the hospital construction program, and the roads to resources program.
The terminal date of the interim period for the hospital insurance program specified in the present bill is December 31, 1970. This date was chosen because the federal-provincial agreements authorized by the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act have a minimum life of ten years and the last
Dominion-Provincial Relations province to enter an agreement did not do so until January 1, 1961.
The duration of the interim period associated with the special welfare program is extended to March 31, 1970. This extended period was chosen, as the Prime Minister's letter indicated, because of the desirability of replacing the compartmentalization which presently characterizes the several welfare programs with an integrated welfare program. This is the desire urged by welfare authorities right across the country.
The interim period for the hospital construction grants program and the roads to resources program fulfils an undertaking given by the government of Canada to continue these programs for a specified period of time. In 1960 the former government undertook to continue hospital construction grants at the existing level until March 31, 1968, and the present government wishes the interim period to continue to that date. The end of the interim period for the roads to resources program is also to coincide with the completion of the present program in each province. These programs terminate at different times from province to province.
Turning to the form of compensation proposed, the government of Canada is to compensate those provinces that assume financial responsibilities for the joint programs, either by equalized personal income tax abatements, subject to adjustments, or by cash payments. The manner of the compensation was determined by the nature and size of the program. The Prime Minister in his letter indicated that the hospital insurance program, the special welfare program, the vocational and technical training program, and the health grants program were of such a nature and size as to require compensation in the form of an equalized personal income tax abatement. In the bill before the house these are termed "standing programs". Cash compensation was considered suitable for the other programs which are described in the bill as "special programs".
A province, to contract out of a joint program, must enter into an agreement with the federal government. The bill empowers the governor in council to authorize the minister of finance and the federal minister responsible for the administration of the joint program to enter into an agreement with a province. This new agreement will supplement the agreement currently governing federal-provincial arrangements for the program.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
The bill provides that the supplementary agreement will require an undertaking that the province entering into such an agreement shall continue to operate the program on the same conditions as was required under the original authority. This is tor the purpose of maintaining the national standards achieved by joint programs and to ensure that a citizen does not suffer any loss of benefit when moving from a province which has not contracted out to one that has. The supplementary agreement may only modify those conditions of the original authority which are concerned with the manner in which the province is compensated for the program, and the manner in which the province submits its claims for reimbursement where reimbursement is involved.
The bill provides that a province has until October 31, 1965, to enter into an agreement to contract out of a joint program. If a province avails itself of the opportunity, it may contract out of a program effective either as of the first day of the interim period or as of a year later. For example, a province which decides to contract out of the hospital insurance program may contract out on January 1, 1965 or January 1, 1966.
For purposes of contracting out, the bill has grouped together certain programs. This grouping has been adopted to insure the maintenance of the close relationship that exists now between joint programs that have similar objectives. And it also allows meaningful tax abatements to be associated with what is called in the bill, standing programs. Old age assistance, blind persons' allowances and disabled persons' allowances, and the base load or welfare component of unemployment assistance are to constitute a single program for the purposes of this bill. The same thing is true of national health grants, disability advisory services and blind pensioners treatment programs.
Now, I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the technical training program and health grants program, which are grouped together for contracting out purposes, are not to include all projects which are at present included in those programs. The capital assistance component of the technical and vocational training program is not subject to the provisions of this bill. The research and demonstration aspects of the health grants program also would be excluded since it is generally agreed that the government of Canada has a particular responsibility to provide leadership in the field of research. Apart from the public health research grant, which is concerned solely with research, it is estimated

that approximately 25 per cent of the expenditures made under other national health grants involve research or demonstration projects. Provision is made in the bill to allow federal and provincial authorities together to determine which projects fall into research and demonstration categories and will therefore be excluded from the contracting out arrangements.
The twofold character of the unemployment assistance program is recognized in this bill. The recipients of unemployment assistance fall into two categories, one category consists of those who are unemployed due to the vagaries of the business cycle and the other category consists of those individuals who are unemployable as well as the hard core of unemployed which persists even in a most buoyant phase of the business cycle. The first category may be classified as the non-welfare portion of unemployment assistance and the second is the welfare portion. While the expenditures constituting the nonwelfare portion of unemployment assistance are subject to variations depending on the state of the economy, the welfare portion, although its magnitude varies from province to province, constitutes a relatively stable base load. Consequently, it was thought desirable to limit the contracting out to the steady or welfare portion of the unemployment assistance program and to continue the fluctuating or non-welfare portion as a continuing joint program.
It is possible to discern the twofold character of the unemployment assistance program from an observation of the expenditures under the program, but it would be difficult administratively to allocate each recipient of unemployment assistance into the aforementioned categories. In order to avoid this difficulty, it was considered advisable to define the welfare portion of unemployment assistance in dollar terms. The welfare portion is defined as equivalent to the value of two equalized abatement points. The expenditure by a province above this level constitutes the non-welfare or continuing joint portion of the unemployment assistance program.
Now, the decision to equate the welfare portion to the value of two abatement points arose from an observation of Ontario expenditures under the joint program. In that highly industrialized province, the base load appeared to approximate $20 million annually, which was equivalent in value to a 2 per cent abatement of the individual income tax. The amount of the basic federal income tax that is to be abated in respect of each program is

set out in clause 6 of the bill. If a province contracts out of all the programs itemized, the basic federal tax will be abated a further 20 percentage points in that province. This abatement, together with the 21 per cent abatement authorized by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, can mean a total abatement in the 1965 taxation year of 41 per cent, or 44 per cent if the province is prescribed under the Youth Allowances Act. In the 1966 taxation year, the tax abatement can rise to 44 per cent or 47 per cent respectively because of the step-up in abatement provided under the recent amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
The bill provides for equalization to be associated with the tax abatement accorded a province that contracts out of a standing program. The yield of the individual income tax varies from province to province and if the compensation had been entirely limited to tax abatement, it would have been necessary to abate the federal tax in each province by varying amounts for the same program. Such an approach could have resulted in ten different federal individual income tax rates across the country. The present federal contribution to the per capita costs of the major shared cost programs in each province falls within a narrow range. Accordingly, if equalization is associated with the tax abated, it will be possible to maintain a uniform tax abatement for each program. At the same time an opting out province will receive compensation approximately equivalent to the former federal share of the expenditures under the former joint programs.
As I say, the equalized tax abatement will provide compensation approximately equal to the former federal share of the joint expenditure. As it is intended that a province which contracts out shall be neither worse off nor better off than a province which does not contract out, the bill provides for adjusting payments and adjusting recoveries. If the equalized abatement during any year of the transitional period provides more revenue than the contracting out province would have been entitled to if it had remained in the joint program, a recovery will be made; if less, an adjustment payment will be made.
The Minister of Finance and the federal minister responsible for the administration of the program may enter into an agreement to allow a province to contract out of any or all of the special programs where the fiscal compensation will take the form of a cash payment. The agreement may specify that the province will continue the program un-
17. 1965
Dominion-Provincial Relations changed, or it may provide for the province to substitute a provincial program. The substituted provincial program must, in the opinion of the responsible federal minister, have objectives substantially similar to the joint program it replaces. Where a contracting out province undertakes to continue the joint program the agreement will specify the manner in which the province will be reimbursed by the federal government and the way in which the provincial accounts will be submitted.
The bill makes provision for changes in the Financial Administration Act and the Income Tax Act, which are a consequence of the contracting out provisions. The amendment to the Financial Administration Act is a technical one to ensure continuation of the present method used in recovering overpayments to individuals under shared cost programs. I would be pleased to explain this matter further in committee if hon. members wish elaboration.
The amendment to the Income Tax Act is necessary to take care of individuals who have income subject to taxation in more than one province. For instance, people in receipt of income from an unincorporated business and professional partnerships are in this category. As the federal tax abatement may vary from province to province depending on which program a province contracts out of, the income of such individuals may be subject to a different tax abatement depending on the province of origin. The amendment is designed to ensure that where an individual has income subject to taxation in more than one province the abatement applicable to each province shall be applied only to the portion of the taxpayer's federal tax attributable to income earned in that province. By way of digression I might say I at one time belonged to a firm that was in this category and I found it no more complicated to calculate my income tax in each province than it should be under this arrangement.


Mr. Nowlan:: You were younger then, Walter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If you do not have a big staff to help you it is unlikely that you will be doing business all across the country.
I would like to conclude this short but rather difficult review of the bill by mentioning three points. First, this proposal has emerged from federal-provincial consultation at which agreement has been reached. In other

Dominion-Provincial Relations words, the provinces have agreed with this proposal.
Second, it is for an interim period only. There will be those who would prefer to do nothing until the final arrangements have been worked out by the tax structure committee, but this would be unfair and unacceptable to those provinces which are anxious to assume a greater measure of responsibility for the programs in question- programs in fields which, under the constitution, come primarily under provincial jurisdiction. As a result of these interim measures we shall gain useful experience which will be helpful in working out more permanent arrangements for the future.
Third, if Canada is to remain a strong and united nation, if we Canadians are to take full advantage of our tremendous opportunities and of our country's truly great potential, we shall have to be prepared to experiment and to change with the times. In a world that is changing rapidly and becoming increasingly competitive, we must develop new policies and new attitudes of mind in our economic affairs.
Similarly, in a Canada that is changing rapidly, we must develop new policies, new approaches and new attitudes of mind in our domestic affairs. And so I would ask all hon. members who plan to participate in this debate to look forward rather than backward; to welcome, not to fear the changes and the challenges that lie ahead; to remember that a broad and flexible approach rather than a narrow rigid one is what is needed if our country is to prosper and succeed.


Mr. Olson:: Did the minister say that all of the provinces have agreed to the provisions in Bill 142?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: They have all agreed to the general approach. They have not agreed to the detailed provisions in the bill; they have not been asked to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this bill in the eyes of certain people on the government side is one of the show horses in their stable. A great deal has been written about it; a great show has been made about it, and somehow or other the phrase "opting out" has been coined as a result of the meetings which led up to this bill and to the agreement behind it. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the Canadian public in the last few years.
There is no opting out in this bill. Provinces are going to be given the right to sign

supplementary agreements to joint programs in which they are now involved, but those supplementary agreements so far as the great majority of and the most important joint programs covered by the bill are concerned, will not give a province one more iota of freedom or room to manoeuvre. Essentially they will be the same programs, with the one basic exception that provinces will take over their administration.
Provinces will be entitled, if they so signify by October 1 next, depending upon the programs which they elect to enter into negotiations on and sign supplementary agreements about, to so many additional points under personal income tax, to a maximum of 20. They will be entitled to adjustments under equalization grants, and in the event that there should be a recession, with insufficient income under income tax and under the equalization program, in specified cases grants may be made from the consolidated revenue fund so that a province will not be worse off.
But with respect to opting out in the context which was trumpeted about, by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), other ministers, and certain provincial premiers saying this was a great victory, I point out that this bill does not allow the provinces one iota of latitude, with some minor exceptions under schedule II, but it is not going to lead anywhere under schedule II.
What will it do? I will tie them in within the same programs and the same responsibilities. If there is an excess of money in the income tax abatement program or the equalization fund there must be a refund to the crown of Canada. I will admit that under schedule II dealing with the agricultural lime assistance program, certain forestry programs, hospital construction programs, campground and picnic area programs and roads to resources programs-which in the main have been carried out-provinces may, with the approval and concurrence of the appropriate minister of the crown of Canada submit their own programs which in lawyers language I would call cy-pres programs, meeting the general objectives of the initial joint programs.
If someone had said: "Yes, in 1967 and in 1970 the provinces will be given the opportunity, since they have the money, to change the nature of programs, to do as they see fit and not renew either the original joint programs or the supplementary agreements" then one might say: "Yes, you are giving the provinces a chance to change". But they are not opting out in the connotation put to us,

as though a province could stop some form of education program, for example, take the money it was receiving and place it in the welfare field if it thought welfare had a higher priority. To take an example in the welfare field, say disabled persons allowances or assistance to the unemployed-and incidentally it will be interesting to see what happens in the sphere of old age assistance: suppose a province would like to turn these funds over to education on the basis that education has a higher priority. The present bill and the supplementary agreements under it would not permit a province to do that; it would not permit this to be done at the present time. In 1967 or in 1970 when the agreements under schedule I expire, the provinces may be able to do this. But they would then be able to do it anyway, because then would come the time to renegotiate these joint programs, and certainly the provinces would avail themselves of every negotiating advantage or desire they might have.
This bill does not mean what the provinces wanted it to mean. It does not mean what it was held out as meaning. Of course, not all the provinces wanted this. This agreement was pulled out of some rather odd negotiations. But there were a number of provinces, led by Premier Roblin of Manitoba, which said that before going into these changes there should be an agreement as to priorities. The minister will have his opportunity later on, but this desire has certainly been expressed by a number of the provinces, a desire supported editorially in financial columns and elsewhere, that these priorities should be established. In my view the government would have been much further ahead if it had called such a conference on the subject of dominion-provincial priorities in the fields of education, welfare, and hospital and medical insurance. These are the most important fields in which the provinces are having to concentrate their expenditures. These are the fields in which, in the development of joint programs and in the carrying out of these supplementary agreements, the provinces have a right and have always had a right to determine where they should concentrate their major effort and their major expenditures. This has been one of the difficulties of the joint programs. The federal government has shown initiative in the past and I maintain that the federal government must continue to maintain that initiative. It will always do so, notwithstanding the provisions of Bill C-142, unless at some time the
Dominion-Provincial Relations constitution is changed. But it seems to me that before we continue to allocate funds as we do under this bill it would be preferable to call and hold a dominion-provincial conference to assist the provinces to determine their stand under this measure, with regard to which programs they may wish to take. After all, what is included in this bill does not exhaust the list of grant programs. I think this would have been the preferable course. It has been urged upon the government before but I will continue to urge it, and indeed I have an amendment which calls for this action to be taken.
In putting forward the amendment I am prepared to propose, I want it to be clearly understood that my hon. friends and I recognize the rights of the provinces in the fields indicated by the joint programs. These rights have always existed, and so have the rights belonging to the crown of Canada; otherwise all these things would have been ultra vires. The government of Canada still has the initiative when it comes to developing joint programs in certain fields, the establishment of national averages, national standards-to see that a program is well started and that it is accomplishing the purpose expected of it. And, having done that, it can step out of the administration of a joint program and give to the provinces, as does the bill before us, an area of fiscal freedom in which to discharge their responsibilities.
However, while I agree with some of the things which are being done in this bill, yet I must say that this legislation has been presented to us under a false cloak. Certain qualities have been attributed to it, and to its effects, which are just not possible under the bill as it stands. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to refer to clause 3, which is the operative clause, which merely says:
A supplementary agreement shall contain an undertaking by the province that the province shall continue to operate the program in accordance with the authorizing instrument except as to the manner in which the government of Canada will contribute thereafter in respect of the program and the manner in which accounts are to be submitted.
We know that the provinces must signify their intention by October 1 next, and we know that the resolution was presented before Christmas, because already one province has indicated verbally its intention to avail itself of the provisions of this bill, should the bill be passed, and there are certain consequences that flow therefrom. The introduction of the resolution prior to January 1, 1965, was in the nature of a letter of intent, giving the revenue

Dominion-Provincial Relations minister of that province the right to set up his taxation system on the basis that this bill would be passed.
The most important of the joint programs covered by this bill is, naturally, hospital insurance, since clause 6 of the bill provides for a tax abatement of up to 14 points on personal income tax with respect to the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program. Then we have four points in the case of special welfare programs, and the number of points is reduced in the other programs. It will be interesting to see which provinces take on the hospital insurance program on their own. Some people have expressed the thought, "Oh, the provinces are going to be able to go on their own. They are going to be able to develop their programs as they see fit". This is part of the propaganda that was put out, that this was the great liberty; that this was removing shackles from the provinces. In so far as hospital insurance is concerned and a number of these other programs that have been in force for some time, the people have become used to them and I doubt very much if any province will be able to do much about changing over; certainly not with respect to the major programs under this bill. There will be no great freedom, except that there may arise certain local peculiarities after 1970, for instance, in the case of the hospital insurance program. I do not think the minister would dare pretend for one moment that in so far as hospital insurance is concerned there is going to be one change in any province up to 1970, because that is not provided for under clause 3.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that the provinces have had the right to enter into these areas. It is going to be very interesting-and the government must contemplate this with some degree of apprehension, I think-to see what will happen in the field of medicare. I give this as a word of warning to the Liberals because some of their people seem to be agitating a great deal for it. In the field of medicare the province of Alberta has a program, the province of Saskatchewan has a program, and they are quite different. British Columbia has introduced a program which is a modification of the Alberta program, and we hear that the province of Ontario also has intentions in this regard. There may be some variations in degree, but in respect of those provinces having instituted programs of medicare and having had them in operation for a number of years, I will be the most surprised man in the world if the federal government is

able to come along and impose upon them a uniform medicare program-unless, of course, the carrot of financial inducement is so great that no province could resist it; but I would say that under those circumstances it would be a financially improvident program from the point of view of the government of Canada.
Therefore I believe that this bill does not at the present time increase the field of activity of any of the provinces. It does not detract from their jurisdiction; it does not detract from the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, because this bill does not amend the constitution.
In so far as the 17 programs that are included in this bill are concerned, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of this house, that other than those under schedule II there is precious little change until comes the time to renegotiate, either in 1967 in the case of certain programs or 1970 in the case of the major ones. And this would have happened anyway. If I may use this phrase, Mr. Speaker, "plus ga change plus c'est la meme chose"-there has not been any great change whatsoever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will accept the minister's question at the end of my remarks. This is the point I wish to make and leave with the house. The bill does accomplish certain things. It gives the provinces the right to sign certain supplementary agreements, and if they do so and the agreement is satisfactory to the government of Canada, there will be certain financial adjustments; but no province will be better off as a result of it. There may be some administrative effects. Certainly the provincial government will administer the program; but there are a number of these programs where federal administration is at a minimum already.
I would like to know what benefit is going to accrue to the service of the government of Canada as the result of this bill. Is there a supervisory staff that has been involved in checking up with the provinces? Is this going to mean that we will have to do away with that staff? Shall we dispense with them? Is there going to be a saving in the administrative costs of, say the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Labour, the Department of Forestry or the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources? There will be such a saving, to

a very limited extent, in the event that all the provinces opt out of a certain program. Perhaps I should not use the phrase "opt out", but if they contract out of a certain program in a certain department. But if only half of the provinces avail themselves of the opportunity under the bill the other half will remain on a joint basis and the federal government will have to maintain the same supervisory service but perhaps at a higher unit cost. Possibly the minister will want to make some comment in regard to that point.
In any event, I am sure that a number of my colleagues will have more to say about the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind what I have said about the situation prior to the bill having been negotiated, I say we should make no further commitments with regard to pensions and what have you until a dominion-provincial conference is held on the priorities of the requirements of the provinces, so that we will know where we are going and they too will know where they are going. This has been called for by many of the premiers and I think it makes eminent sense. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton):
That Bill C-142 be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the priorities of their requirements desired by the provinces of Canada and its territories in those fields of jurisdiction indicated in the schedules of the said bill, such priorities to be established at a federal-provincial conference convened for the said purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you put the amendment, I think the hon. member said he would permit me to ask him a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question arises because of his summarizing the bill as "plus ga change plus c'est la meme chose". I just wondered whether he had been able to convince his leader about that, in view of all the publicity.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Why do you worry about that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member may be smirking in self-satisfaction over what he thinks is a pointed question, but may I say that much of what has been attributed to the stand of the party in regard to this matter has been very speculative, imaginative and unfounded. Therefore the views I have
Dominion-Provincial Relations been putting forward as summarized in the amendment are those of this party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question? Is it true then that his leader has another daisy that he is pulling the petals off?


Mr. Churchill:: How is the unhappy warrior getting along on your side?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is indulging in witticisms. Perhaps he should have exercised them on the hon. member for Port Arthur.


John (Jack) Davis: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question? Is the hon. member saying that Bill No. C-142, the so-called opting out legislation, cannot possibly lead to the balkanization of Canada but quite the reverse, in that it is leaving too much power in Ottawa's hands?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Maybe I used the word bal-kanized. Certainly it can balkanize. There are a lot of things involved. It is not only the bill. Balkanization can be done by the constitution.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Are you putting the motion, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Maybe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands could carry on with his speech for a minute or two and then allow me to interrupt him.


Colin Cameron: I would rather wait for your ruling because I prefer not to be interrupted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Then I will read the motion and I do so provisionally. Mr. Lambert, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, moves:
That Bill C-142 be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the priorities of their requirements desired by the provinces of Canada and its territories in those fields of jurisdiction indicated in the schedules of the said bill, such priorities to be established at a federal-provincial conference convened for the said purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Having heard you read it, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it is grammatical.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How would you know?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Ed-

Dominion-Provincial Relations monton West (Mr. Lambert) but I was uncertain whether he was deploring the fact that the government had not brought in legislation that would permit a conglomeration of different standards across the country, so that somebody in Alberta would draw a different pension from that of a person in Ontario, and hospital services in Quebec would be quite different from those in British Columbia. As I say, I am rather at a loss to know what he is objecting to there.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I ask whether my hon. friend is speaking on the substance of the bill or on this amendment? If we are going to debate the amendment perhaps we should confine ourselves to that. Certainly I will have something to say about the amendment.


Colin Cameron: I might say in reply to the minister that I presumed I was speaking to the bill and I was referring to the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton West during his remarks on the bill before he introduced his amendment. I do not think what the minister is suggesting is too clear, but it is the bill itself on which I am speaking.
I do think there is perhaps some criticism to be made in the area mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West which is, shall we say, in the area of rigidity. However, this rigidity is not produced by the bill. It has been there throughout the whole period of all these shared cost programs. In many instances I think these conditional grants have been too narrowly circumscribed. I know that in speaking to friends in provincial administrations they have told me that very often the provincial government does not see fit to take up a conditional grant because the expenditure envisaged thereunder is not one that strikes them as being as necessary as some other expenditure. However, that is a matter that has been before the house all the time that these shared cost programs have been in operation, and it would seem to be a rather strange time now to be objecting to them.
I had some misgivings about this legislation when I first heard it rumoured abroad. Naturally because of my particular field of interest I had some misgivings and doubts about a possible reduction of the federal government's fiscal authority to control or to influence the economy of the country. Knowing the close connection between the federal government's taxing, borrowing and spending powers and such matters as monetary

control, stimulation of the economy, and the combatting of unemployment I had, as I say, some misgivings.
Then I made a mistake, and of course it is a very great mistake. I know there are people who say very firmly when they have made up their minds, "Do not confuse me with facts". This is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do-which I proceeded to do-because I found that the effect of the bill is not going to be as earth shaking as some people thought it was going to be. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that whenever this mountain of ineptitude that we dignify with the name "government" goes into labour, it usually produces a pretty small mouse. I discovered that this was not an exception to the rule.
All the facts concerning it are ascertainable, and they all add up to something less than earth shaking. We should be rather careful when we debate this bill because of the possibility of some emotional reactions to it which might be very dangerous. I should like to stress what some of these facts are, so that we can all be clear as to what we are facing.
This afternoon the minister did take the occasion to mention that the particular programs with which this bill deals are all clearly within provincial jurisdiction. I think we can all agree in that regard. There is here no relinquishing of federal responsibility and power in regard to any of the programs. However, we must examine something else. We must examine the size of the programs, because even though the programs involved clearly fall within provincial jurisdiction, under certain circumstances it might be possible to argue that the type of legislation herein proposed might seriously diminish the federal government's authority and power to control the economy, and this is where we must consider the facts of the case; and they are fairly simple.
We find that all the programs involved here, if they were taken up by all the provinces, would amount to a figure of some $470 million in tax abatements, which amounts to some 21 per cent of the total receipts from personal income tax. That is not going to rock the fiscal boat too dangerously. Even if we take the further step and examine the possibility mentioned by the minister of the gradual inclusion of all programs for which conditional grants are now being made, the total would amount to something less than $1 billion. I may say that I have received some conflicting figures in this regard, but I gather it would be somewhere in that neighbourhood. This

would amount to some 10 or 11 per cent of total government revenues, or just over $7 billion, so again I do not think that that is anything which is likely to rock the boat or cause us serious trouble in respect of balkanization of the country.
I have mentioned the possibility of all provinces taking advantage of this legislation. I think we should keep clearly in our minds that this legislation is applicable to all provinces. It has been presented in speeches made in other places that this legislation is another sop to the province of Quebec; another instance of the Liberal government's capitulation in the face of French intransigence. This could be answered by saying they are available to all provinces; but I do not think that would really be an honest answer, because I strongly suspect that every province will not be anxious to take advantage of the opting out legislation.
This arises, I think, from the difference in attitude toward governments in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada. I am given to understand that in the province of Quebec a very large part of the prestige of any government is based on its power to impose taxes, which is rather different from governments in the rest of Canada where taxing activities do not usually, shall we say, endear themselves to the victims, or add to the taxing government's prestige.
I do not think it would be quite honest to suggest that the complete answer to this is that the measures are available to all provinces. I think we have to look again at the magnitudes involved and we will find that the total tax abatement value of this bill, if the province of Quebec takes advantage of it, will be less than $120 million. I am sure very few people would suggest that by allowing the Quebec government to stick its fingers in the public's pockets to the tune of $120 million, rather than the Minister of Finance here, is going to break confederation. However, I have an uneasy feeling that there may be some who will try to use this opting out legislation as a stick to beat French Canada. I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in that I do not like the term "opting out" because it offends my pedantic sense of English.
I have mentioned these figures in respect of this bill to show that no one who does embark upon such a program, and it might be tempting to do so, could do anything but convict himself of two things; first, of economic illiteracy and, second, of being a
Dominion-Provincial Relations dangerous and irresponsible demagogue. I do not think there is any ground whatever for holding that view, but it may well be that it was to accommodate the particular desires and atmosphere of the province of Quebec that the federal government was encouraged to go ahead with this. That being the case, one can only ask, so what? The new legislation is not going to destroy confederation.
It is necessary to go a little further and to examine the trend that may be set up by this particular legislation, because while in itself it is not of any earth shaking importance, it might well be that further development of programs by the federal government, again to be included in the opting out arrangements, might cause some rather dangerous development. We have all been hoping, I must admit to a diminishing degree in light of the Liberal party's record, that the Liberal government would eventually draw a deep breath, take its courage in both hands, and introduce a medicare program. I have attempted to get estimates of the possible cost of such a program. The figures I have been given indicate that the cost would be something over $20 per capita per annum, possibly as high as $25, making a total cost of between $400 million and $500 million. One might well imagine that it is possible to consider, if the government-I admit this is a terribly big "if"-should suddenly become so courageous as to institute this program, it should then include it in the opting-out legislation, and in that event there would be a very dangerous trend.
However, I think even that would not pose a very serious problem provided, and this is an important aspect, the federal government is prepared to expand the field of its operation at the same time it is divesting itself of fiscal responsibility for these and other programs. Indeed, this is an equally meaningful way in which one can examine the possible dangers of this development. Quite frankly I discount the dangers so far revealed or likely to be revealed in the future, but I can see a danger if the federal government takes the point of view that, having relieved itself of these responsibilities it would then be free to sit back and contemplate its navel, perhaps, and not do anything very definite in the way of expanding the economy.
It is the relationship between the total operations of the federal government and the operations of the provinces and municipalities which is the important factor here. I think it is worth noting that at the present time

Dominion-Provincial Relations the expenditures of the provinces and municipalities now equal those of the federal government. As I recall it, they are almost equal, one being slightly ahead of the other, and I forget which one it is. This reveals the fact that if we are going to have a sort of economic decentralization, which I think is vastly desirable in many fields, then we must make quite sure our federal government is going to expand itself vis-a-vis the operations of provincial governments. The two areas, of course, in which the government can expand itself are, one, domestically-and I do not intend to deal with that this afternoon because some of my colleagues are going to deal with possible programs in the domestic field-and, two, externally. I should like to dwell for a short while not only on the possibilities, not only on the opportunities but on the very heavy responsibilities that Canada has in the world of today for expanding our operations in the world outside.
Not long ago I sent to our external aid office to get a statement of all contributions that Canada has made to the welfare and development to the western world. Frankly, I was rather dismayed after having listened to the glowing words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) which, in my opinion, did not quite say what I thought they said. They seldom do; and I should know better. However, I found actually our external aid program has only reached the dizzy height of $53,700,000 out of a gross national product of $43 billion in this country. This seems to be a rather picayune contribution. However, I am not basing my remarks on any philanthropic point of view, I am not basing them on any moral obligation, although they are there very plainly. I am basing these remarks on common sense and self-preservation.
I suggest to you that the secretary general of the United Nations was all too correct not long ago when he suggested that the cleavage between the underdeveloped areas in the world and the developed areas in the world was a much more dangerous cleavage than any ideological cleavage there may be between east and west. Frankly, I think it is disgraceful that 20 million people, with more resources at their command than the vast majority of the human race, who are continually boasting of their affluent society, whose government is forever boasting about how well the economy is working, are only prepared to go the distance of $53,700,000 in this program of aiding the rest of the world.
I suggest to you if our government is prepared, at the same time it is prepared to

expand our economy domestically, to make substantial efforts to expand its operations abroad from the lavish and generous external program and the lavish loan program it has, there is no danger whatever of this opting out legislation destroying Canada. However, I have a strong suspicion that if we are not going to do something of this sort, then this kind of fiscal decentralization may lead to stagnation in Canada, if to nothing worse.
I should like to say a word or two on the question of this loan program, about which we heard so much from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I see the minister is getting restive. I suggest to him that there is a very close link between this and the opting out legislation. If he wants me to argue the point, I will do so right now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Do not do it on my account.


Colin Cameron: I always like to please the minister.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought we were on external aid at the moment.


Colin Cameron: I was, but I am now going to the loan program about which we heard so much from his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was particularly happy at the way in which this great government had decided it was going to double its contributions to the world. Then, I made a great discovery: I found that $40 million had been allocated to these loans. None of it has yet been really granted, and the only thing that is of concrete value is the 100,000 tons of wheat to India. I am not even sure if that has gone as yet, or whether it is another little harbinger of spring that never seems to arrive. I suggest to you that this is a serious matter, in the light of the government's decision to encourage a substantial measure of fiscal decentralization. It may well be a very serious matter, in the hands of a timid government; and I am afraid it is in the hands of a timid government now. It is a government that shows almost a genius for ineptitude.


Mr. Baldwin:: Pathological.


Colin Cameron: Pathological?-well, perhaps; it is something, anyway-the blind staggers, I suppose. This is a government that is always afraid to take a decisive step, that introduces a program with a great fanfare of trumpets, and when all the words are over we find it is something very, very modest. I suggest to you

if this opting out legislation is to be the beginning of the required development in Canada, then this government has got to get on its feet and has to expand its operations domestically and, even more importantly, in the world abroad, than it is at present doing or shows any signs of doing.
In the meantime, I am not sure what Your Honour is going to do about this amendment. I think I can say, offhand, it will not receive the support of my party. We propose to support the legislation, although I again make the comment concerning the unnecessary rigidity of it. I hope that at the end of the period for which agreements are going to be signed, there will be some amendments to the agreements that will permit of greater flexibility within certain areas of operation within each of the provinces, rather than the rigid tying down that has taken place under the conditional grants, and is being continued under Bill No. C-142.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we have the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) before us or not, or even whether you are ready to accept that amendment. However, I should like to address a few remarks to the bill that is before us. I have to agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West and some of the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), to the effect that we really do not have much before us, if you are talking about genuine transfer of responsibilities from the federal government to the provincial governments concerned.
Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree perhaps a little with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) when he suggested earlier this afternoon that the programs that will be subject to negotiation with the provinces are almost all exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
I think there could be some argument about some of the programs in schedule II, but certainly almost every one of those in schedule I relate to areas that are completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. For that reason, I think the time is long past due when those responsibilities should have been handed back to the provinces. I should like also to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consider this Bill No. C-142 to be any special bill for the province of Quebec. There are a number of provinces which made representation to
Dominion-Provincial Relations the federal government that they believed many of these programs were a provincial responsibility, and that they should not only have exclusive jurisdiction for administering them but should also have access to financial resources in order to have the capacity to deal with them.
In my opinion this bill does not provide for any true opting out arrangement at all. In the final analysis it provides only for a different form of agreement, which would be implemented by an additional agreement which the bill terms a "supplementary agreement." It is a complex and an elaborate method of making it appear that a province is acting on its own responsibility rather than taking handouts from the federal government. It is only a facade behind which the federal government would continue the agreements on its own terms, and the provinces would be charged with the responsibility of collecting the necessary funds.
If you look at clause 3(2) you will find it clearly reveals that this legislation does not leave a province any freedom to carry out the programs in any way it may desire. It must still continue the same programs in accordance with the "authorizing instrument," which is of course the original agreement, if the province expects to receive the same rate of contribution from the federal government.
Right at this juncture I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, how long must these agreements or programs be carried on in accordance with the authorizing instrument? Is this to be an interminable condition of so-called opting out, that the provinces shall continue all these programs in accordance with the authorizing agreement, which we can only take as being based on the previous agreements?
Looking at clause 3(2) it certainly does not appear that there is any termination for the length of time that the provinces must continue the programs in accordance with the decision of the Minister of Finance. In other words, they are not going to have any opportunity to change these programs unless they have agreement from the Minister of Finance, and that is not true opting out. It is certainly not transferring the administrative responsibility to the provinces, although it is charging them with the responsibility of collecting these 20 percentage points of personal income tax.
Clause 6 sets out the number of additional percentage units of personal income tax, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, up to 20 altogether, which the federal government

Dominion-Provincial Relations would transfer to any province which opts out of the agreements listed in schedule 1. But clause 9 makes it clear that if the additional units of tax abatement are not sufficient to equal grants payable under the agreements, the federal government will make up the difference. Conversely, if the abatement is more than sufficient the federal government will recover the difference. Therefore the provinces will be completely hamstrung, at the discretion of the Minister of Finance, and they are not going to have any more revenue available to them in spite of the tax abatement.
The provinces may want to change their programs but they will not be allowed to cut down on them. Subject to agreement with the Minister of Finance there will be some areas where the federal government can make additional grants, and it may cost more to administer the programs when the provinces take over administrative responsibility. But if the programs do not cost as much as the tax abatement would amount to, then this produces a debt owing by the provinces to the federal government.
The net result of these clauses is that a province may be held responsible for collecting enough income tax to meet the federal government grant under the present agreements. The only real advantage to a province is that there would be some reduction in the number of claims processed. I suppose we can concede at this point that the administration may be a bit easier and simpler, but so far as dollars and cents are concerned, or the right to change these programs, there does not seem to be any latitude whatever granted to the provinces. If this is true then the bill is a farce because it is not going to give the provinces any additional responsibility in administering the programs or adjusting their income tax levels to meet those programs.
If I may, I should like to bring one particular program into focus for a few minutes. It will be found under column 1 in schedule I, the hospital insurance program under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I think the province of Alberta will be very anxious to opt out of this shared program because of the severely discriminatory action taken by the federal government over the years in setting the formula. I refer specifically to the co-insurance, something like $1.60 to $2 a day collected by the province of Alberta in the administration of this program. We call it co-insurance.
The federal government has consistently refused to accept this as a legitimate way of
[Mr. Olson.l

collecting part of the cost of administering the program, and therefore the province of Alberta has received that much less from the federal government as its share under the calculations that are used. If clause 3(2) is to be invoked it would appear that the province of Alberta will have no authority to change this matter and to collect this coinsurance, if it so decided, without the express permission of the Minister of Finance; and unless that permission is given, then of course the tax abatements will not amount to the net revenue being collected by the province of Alberta.
I am rather disappointed that all these provisions are in the bill, leaving the Minister of Finance and the other federal ministers responsible for the regulations of these programs with almost full discretionary power to decide how the provinces may administer them in the future, and to decide whether or not the provinces can make amendments to these programs. What is worse is that there appears to be no termination provision in the bill respecting the time during which the federal government can exercise this discretion.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I ask my hon. friend a question. During the course of his very interesting remarks he has said on several occasions that there is no termination date. I wonder if he has studied clause 3(3)(a) and (b) which clearly sets out the termination date?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I have studied these, but I will admit, not in great detail. Does this mean that the federal government would finally and completely vacate that area of the tax field which was transferred to the provinces after the dates set out? The minister shakes his head. So it becomes even more difficult to understand what this means. I hope when he rises to address the house again the hon. gentleman will give us more detailed information as to what will happen after the termination of the agreements in the two schedules.
We had hoped there would be some genuine transfer of responsibility to the provinces, particularly in relation to those programs which are within provincial jurisdiction, in our view at least, according to the terms of the British North America Act. It is our hope, too, that the minister may give consideration to opting out programs when it comes to revenue. We know that in this area, the province of Alberta, particularly, and the province of British Columbia

have been subjected to some highly discriminatory formulae in determining the extent of transfers from the federal to the provincial treasuries. I know I do not need to draw this matter to the attention of the minister; I am sure he knows what I am talking about. I am referring, for example, to the inclusion of revenue from natural resources under the pretence that it is income, though every businessman in Canada and most of the chartered accountants would agree that revenue from the sale of some of these natural resources represents the sale of a capital asset rather than income. However, the federal government has consistently refused to recognize this.


An hon. Member:: They are not businessmen.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My hon. friend says they are not businessmen. I shall not be so unkind as to say that, but I should like to draw this vividly to the attention of the minister once again: there are some provinces which are not happy about the way in which these formulae are used to calculate the transfers of funds, and we hope the government will give consideration to this question very soon.
May I say in closing that we would like the minister to give us more detailed explanations respecting clause 3 in particular, because in his earlier explanation he did not go into sufficient detail. Generally, we do not think this is really the kind of transfer of administrative responsibility which ought to have been reflected in this bill, particularly when we are considering programs which come within provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in taking the floor I wonder whether I should deal with the amendment or the bill itself.
Upon reading Bill No. C-142, we find that it has very few commendable points after all the promises made by this government, especially during the last election campaign, concerning repatriation of those famous joint programs. This repatriation does not amount to very much because the provinces will first have to accept what the federal government will want to return to them. The provinces will probably beg the federal government to return to them certain rights in lieu of some taxation fields or equalization payments. As a matter of fact, provinces will be like poor individuals who come begging to the federal government because it is still the federal government which has the first and the last word in this matter.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
In order to appreciate all the implications of this bill, I think we have to go back to the origin of those famous joint programs. Why are we asking today, as we have been asking for years, the federal government to hand back to the provinces those taxation fields which are theirs?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the house that it is due to the good will shown by the provinces during the last war when they yielded their three main taxation fields to the federal government of the day. The government of the day had promised to give back to the provinces those three taxation fields, the personal income tax, the corporation income tax and the estate tax. The record will show that the federal government had formally promised to give back those borrowed taxation fields immediately after the war. The war has been over for nearly 20 years and we are still waiting for the return of those taxation powers which will enable the provinces to recover full control of their economies.
I often compare those powers which were lent to the federal government to those which a municipality would surrender to a province in the field of property taxes. If a province were to ask its municipalities to forgo their main taxation field, property taxes, for a certain period of time, the municipalities would not last long, or they would have to levy other taxes to meet their expenses. That is precisely what happened when the provinces surrendered those three taxation fields to the federal government of the day. They had practically nothing left to meet their budgetary expenditures and, consequently, they had to set up all kinds of new taxes.
We lived through that period of sacrifices, we accepted it for victory, but I think the time has come for the provinces to demand back what another government borrowed.
Instead of bringing down such a piecemeal bill, I think it would have been better for the Minister of Finance to hand back to the provinces, as promised, all joint programs now in operation.
As a matter of fact, those joint programs were simply set up to hand back to the provinces, one way or the other, the overpayment of taxes in each province. And when I say overpayment, I do not mean that the federal government handed back to the provinces exactly the amount that was levied in each one of them.
The province of Quebec, for one, has more than paid its share of the compulsory tribute to the federal government. While it was

Dominion-Provincial Relations stated in this house that the province of Quebec did not shell out amounts of money-in excess of what the federal government had levied in taxes, evidence showed recently that the province of Quebec paid over $278 million for its tribute to the federal government. The time has therefore come for such a procedure to end.
A short while ago, I heard the Minister of Finance state that most joint programs came specifically under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I think that the federal government should not in any way hinder the handing back of such plans to the provinces that want them. I think that those are vested rights absolutely essential to protect the autonomy of each one of the provinces.
Even if the federal government still undertakes to hand back certain amounts to the provinces, in the form of equalization payments or otherwise, to balance the joint programs which will now remain under the central government's control, I maintain that this will still constitute an encroachment on the part of the centralizers, in short, an infringement upon the autonomy and independence of each province, in its own jurisdiction.
The minister also stated that, under this measure, a sum of nearly $900 million will be transferred to the provinces. We are not necessarily worried by the amount. I always come back to this principle that the provinces have the right to own and control, for themselves, the three main fields of taxation I mentioned a while ago. I wonder why the federal government is so reluctant to hand those fiscal powers back to the provinces. I think I know or I can guess why from the centralizing and often socialistic ideas behind the federal government's actions.
The purpose is to have a strong federal government, to the prejudice of the provinces.
It is said that most programs come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, though most of these programs have been retained for 20 years. This is a farce- which we will no longer put up with-on the part of this government.
We were happy to read, at the top of the electoral platform of the party in office, "the complete handing over of the shared programs". But we were not so happy when we read this bill which is probably only a smokescreen behind which the government would hold out the prospect of the fulfilment of its promises. This fulfilment is very small

as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
We want the province of Quebec, and any other province which wants it, but especially the province of Quebec because we are from that province-to recover its field of activity so that it can boost its economy which has been going down for 20 or 25 years.
The province of Quebec needs its taxing powers and I can assure the minister that if he grants Quebec, not this favour as I was about to say, but this right, its economy in a few years from now will be comparable to that of the other provinces in Canada. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that its present revenues will allow Quebec to stand proudly with the other Canadian provinces.
Therefore I hope that this bill will be more complete.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), which would give the priority to the provinces of Canada, I see there a logical step because it is a start toward giving jurisdiction to the rightful bodies in the fields which come exclusively under the provinces.
The provinces will insist that the federal government give them back those taxation fields and then they will stop being dependant on the federal government and forced to accept the crumbs it gives them.
Mr. Speaker, in his last speech, the minister said: "Let us look ahead not back."
But, in my opinion, in order to look ahead, one must know what happened in the past, and that is precisely what I want to point out to the minister. I looked a little at what happened in the past and if he knows how to look forward, I am sure that Quebec will be treated fairly.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two on this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it in order?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps I might come to that. I would like to say a word or two on the terms of the amendment, for a number of reasons. First of all, I am sure most hon. members were surprised at the nature of the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in the light of all the furore, the fanfare and the excitement that has been generated in the press about this particular bill over the last several weeks. I suspect that some hon. members, at least, expected that the party opposite might be

opposing this bill, it they were going to oppose it, on some other kind of grounds than those advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do you believe all you read?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member asks me if I believe all I read. Naturally I do not, and I also do not believe everything I hear. It seemed to me that the hon. member was doing his very best at the last moment to produce some sort of case, but one which somehow or other seemed to me to fall rather flat. I was surprised at the terms of the amendment and at what the hon. member said, because he suggested it would be important to hold a federal-provincial conference to discuss the question of priorities before this bill was proceeded with.
It seemed to me he might have overlooked the fact that since April, 1963, there have been some 25 meetings of federal and provincial representatives, including five meetings of prime ministers and premiers which might be described as full-dress federal-provincial conferences. Two of these were held in 1963, in July and November. Three were held last year in March, September and October and another one will probably be called within the next several months.
I also wonder whether my hon. friend remembers that there was full agreement on the part of the federal and provincial governments with regard to the setting up of a tax structure committee. I would refer him to page 9074 of Hansard of October 15, 1964, where the terms of reference of that tax structure committee may be found. While I will not read the whole of the terms of reference I would draw his attention particularly to clauses 1 and 3. Clause 1 reads as follows:
The committee is directed by the federal-provincial conference to study and to report upon the following matters...:
1. Trends to be expected during 1967-72 in public expenditures by the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities, taking into account the broad priorities likely to be accorded by governments to expenditures on major programs that will compete for available funds.
As I remember, those words and terms were reasonably acceptable to the premier of the province to whom my hon. friend referred. He was a party to setting up this study which has been going ahead since, and on which many people are engaged fully. The third point in the terms of reference, which is again something to be studied and reported upon, reads as follows:
3. The general policy to be followed In respect of shared cost programs during the period 1967-72.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I do not quite know what my hon. friend had in mind by suggesting that we call another conference to consider what the tax structure committee has been established to study, because that is essentially what he is suggesting. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if this amendment were to pass and if we were to call a federal-provincial conference for the purposes suggested I would expect that the representatives of the provinces would be most surprised, to put it mildly. If their representatives turned up at all at such a conference it would seem to me they might well ask whether we planned to duplicate the work of the tax structure committee, inasmuch as they have already established a committee to do the very things that my hon. friend has been suggesting.


George Clyde Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is discussing a point of order and, if so, do you wish the point of order discussed at this time, or on the other hand is he going into the merits of the amendment? I would suggest with all due respect that is what he is discussing, and I suggest this is not the time or place for him to discuss the merits of the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not the understanding of the Chair. I do not believe a point of order has been raised at all until now. I believe the minister was discussing the merits of the amendment, just as the hon. member before him did.


George Clyde Nowlan: On what basis is he discussing the merits of the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not notice that a point of order was brought up at any time during the course of the debate. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre posed perhaps a very indiscreet question when he suggested that possibly the amendment was not in order. The minister said then "I will come to this later", but at the moment he is doing what the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Roberval did, that is, considering the substance and the merits of the amendment itself.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not detain my hon. friends very much longer with the remarks I am making. I wanted to conclude the point I was just making with regard to the strange suggestion that another federal-provincial conference should be called to consider work that a federal-provincial conference or a series of them have already been doing, work with

Dominion-Provincial Relations regard to which they have established a special committee to establish the subject in depth. I think that is the expression used these days.
In other words, I am inclined to think, and I say this with respect and in no unpleasant sense, that this proposal is something of nonsense. In the light of the very serious consideration that a series of federal-provincial conferences have already given to these questions, and in the light of the fact that they set up a tax structure committee to make what we hope will be the most comprehensive inquiry into these fields that has ever been undertaken, I suggest there would be no purpose in having another conference. I might remind my hon. friend that this study was received most enthusiastically by the premiers as well as by the representatives of the federal government, that it was recognized it would take a year or so to make such a study and that after discussion at these conferences it was fully understood that we would do something in the interim. That is what the bill sets out to do.
I think the hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has raised a point which might perhaps have escaped me, namely that this amendment is not only grammatically unusual, if I may say so, but does not in any way oppose the principle of the bill. Therefore it would seem to me that at the appropriate time Your Honour will be considering very carefully whether the amendment is in order at all. I would suggest that it is not. If by any chance Your Honour should be persuaded-I cannot at the moment think of a stronger word-that for some reason or other we should consider this amendment, then those on this side of the house will vote against it.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in the opening remarks today of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) he challenged the house to accept the suggestion that with the new problems and situations in a federal state as large geographically and as modern as that which exists in Canada we have to search out for new policies and attitudes. He asked the house to look forward to the future without fear. He suggested we need more flexible and broader approaches than have been utilized in the past. It is to that suggestion that I wish to direct my main remarks.
The minister saw fit to rise in connection with the amendment on the grounds that there had been five conferences in the last

two years between the federal and the ten provincial governments, and that in addition there had been established a tax structure committee, and that therefore the amendment put forward was not necessary. I think this lends weight to the remarks I intend to make now.
Generally speaking, in federal-provincial conferences the assumption is that the federal government represents federal interests. That has not been the case in the last two years. There is an essential difference in this regard. In the past, perhaps in our naivete, in nearly 100 years we have assumed that the government which all the people of Canada elected to carry out the national business would protect the interests of the federal government. With the constant confrontation that must be expected in a federal state, as between federal and provincial powers, one expects that the provincial governments will represent their points of view with all the vigour and astuteness at their command. Simultaneously, one expects that the federal government will represent its interests with all the vigour at its command.
Let me remind the house briefly what has been the history of the last 23 months. Hon. members will recall that when this government took office it immediately and without consultation with the provinces jumped into the provincial arena and as a result got a bloody nose. Not only Quebec, but other provinces objected with a result that the federal government not only retreated from these four main invasions into the provincial arena, but began to abandon position after position, which were traditional positions of federal power.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is what is causing the vague yet deep uneasiness in Canada today. This bill by itself is innocuous. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) stated, and I cannot recall his exact words, this is a sham and a delusion.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the minister wishes to use the word "nonsense", I suggest he should use it in respect of this bill.
Let me state in respect of the suggestion that a tax structure committee will resolve this very vital problem of relationships in the federal and provincial governments, that men who tend to put their faith in these tax structure committees look upon everything purely from the narrow base of the tax dollars. It is time in the history of Canada that we look upon the relationships between

these various governments with some awareness of the social problems of today and with some awareness of the tremendous things which have to be done in a broad economic sense. I am sure the tax structure committee will do very useful work, but I should like to suggest that there is much more to be done and, as I suggested earlier, this will be the theme of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was demonstrated very clearly by the hon. member for Edmonton West that this bill does not do anything for the provinces. It gives them no increased power in the administrative field. It gives them no more flexibility in financial control. It does not give them any chance to allow for priorities, and certainly it gives them no chance to utilize new principles which are needed in respect of share cost programs.
There is a real case to be made for share cost programs in a federal state. The purpose of federal programs, in respect of which the federal government should move into provincial fields on a co-operative basis on certain occasions, is a good one. If we are to maintain strong federalism in Canada there must be a strong central government. There must be strong provincial governments able to carry out their functions. Because of the difference in fiscal powers, we must accept the principle of equalization and we must accept the principle of special grants to carry out certain programs. This can be done on a formula basis or it could be done on special bases. I think we must in addition accept the principle that with the growing weight of de-
Business of the House mand for certain services in Canada, provincial abilities must be expanded in order that they can carry out these services with their own money; but this must be done gradually. We must never as representatives of the people of all Canada allow the federal government's power, to do what it must in the national interest to be diminished below a safety level.
Mr. Speaker, I would call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the business of the house will be tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we will not be dealing with government business tomorrow, on the understanding that it is the desire of hon. members to deal with the motion which appears on today's order paper, to resume the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Olson, seconded by Mr. Walker, that the 15th report of the special committee on procedure and organization be concurred in. That motion will be proceeded with tomorrow.


George Clyde Nowlan: At the conclusion of that business will we then proceed with the bill that is now before the house?


George James McIlraith: Yes, subject to the suggestion that if the time available is limited we may call the Companies Act legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
12500


[Stage Direction]
Similar letter sent also to the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
Ottawa, August 15, 1964.
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud, M.L.A., Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, N.B.
My dear Premier:
I refer to the discussions on contracting out arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs which took place in Ottawa on June 8 and 9. These discussions were, as you know, initiated at the request of the Quebec government, pursuant to the decision of the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city from March 31 to April 2, 1964.
At the June meeting, our representatives sought to find an approach which would fulfil two conditions: first, it would be equally available to all provinces; and second, it would not interfere with provinces maintaining the existing arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs.
I should now like to review with you the conclusions we have reached subsequent to these consultations. I believe that these provide a satisfactory basis for the agreement which it is proposed to make with the Quebec government. We are prepared to make an arrangement on a similar basis with any province which so wishes.
It has been mutually agreed that it would be desirable to provide initially for an interim or transitional arrangement. Under such an interim arrangement, the province would maintain its present obligations in respect of programs which would be eligible for contracting-out. It would, in particular, continue to provide the services envisaged in them and to furnish to the federal government an accounting of the expenditures incurred under the programs. On the other hand, the federal contribution would, depending on the nature and size of each program, take the form either of equalized personal income tax abatements subject to adjustments, or of cash payments. The length of the interim period would vary depending also on the circumstances of each program. More permanent contracting-out arrangements would be the
subject of further negotiations at the appropriate time, taking into account, among other factors, the experience acquired during the interim period and such recommendations as the tax structure committee might formulate in the meantime on the subject of conditional grant and shared cost programs. Such arrangements might well prove to be part of a new approach to fiscal arrangements commencing in 1967.
The programs which it is proposed should be eligible for contracting-out fall into two categories. The first includes continuing programs which are concerned primarily with social objectives. Excluded from this category are programs involving non-recurring projects, such as capital, research and demonstration projects. The second category includes a group of programs which are expected to be of limited duration.
It has been recognized from the beginning that the contracting-out arrangements that might be agreed between the federal and Quebec governments should be such as to be readily applicable to any province that might wish to avail itself of them. It was agreed furthermore that a contracting-out province would, during the interim period and subsequently, continue to participate in federal-provincial bodies and meetings established for the purposes of consultation and co-ordination in fields of activity where contracting-out would apply.
As regards the compensation, it was established that it would, normally, take the form of equalized personal income tax abatements in the case of well established programs which could be expected to continue indefinitely, and the form of cash payments in the case of smaller programs which might not be expected to continue indefinitely.
More specifically, it is proposed that: A. Among the programs to which contracting-out would not apply are the following:
1.	Capital programs:	(a) Trans-Canada
highway; (b) Railway grade crossing; (c) Vocational training, capital assistance; (d) ARDA; (e) Municipal winter works.
2.	Current programs: (a) Grants to 4-H clubs; (b) Grants to special fairs; (c) Compensation for animal disease losses; (d) Crop insurance; (e) Farm labour agreement; (f) Health grants (research and demonstration projects); (g) Public health research grant;

(h) Training of unemployed; (i) Training in co-operation with industry; (j) Fisheries industries development.
3.	Emergency measures.
4.	Centennial of confederation.
B. The following continuing programs, which involve primarily social objectives, would be suitable for contracting-out in return for a total compensation as indicated in the form of abatement of the federal income tax by a specified percentage, together with equalization to equate the yield of each percentage point to the average of the two provinces where it is highest. If programs involving a single abatement point where the only ones to which contracting-out applied, compensation could take the form of a lump sum payment. In all cases the compensation would be subject to adjustments to bring the compensation to equal actual audited expenditures and on the understanding that all the other conditions of the programs would be maintained during the interim period:
(a)	Hospital insurance: interim period until December 31, 1970; compensation to amount to 14 points;
(b)	Old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance; compensation for the three categorical welfare programs to amount to 2 points; the "base load" or welfare portion of unemployment assistance to be represented by an equalized abatement of 2 points on personal income tax, and remaining or unemployment portion to continue on present basis; length of the interim period for four welfare programs to be governed by the timing of the establishment by the federal government of an integrated program of public assistance and, in any event, not to go beyond March 31, 1970;
(c)	Vocational training: student aid, vocational high school training, technician training, trade and occupational training (except those elements of the program which are agreed to be concerned with members of the labour force receiving further training), training of disabled, correspondence courses, training of technical teachers; interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
(d)	Health grants (excluding research and demonstration projects): general public health, tuberculosis control, mental health, professional training, cancer control, medical rehabilitation and crippled children, child and maternal health, disability advisory services, blind pensioners treatment: interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
C. The following programs would be suitable for contracting out for cash compensation on the understanding that a contracting-out province would agree to continue to carry on a program of this nature during the interim period, and that the federal government would reserve the right to terminate the program in respect of which contracting out is arranged at the expiration of the interim period:	(a) Agricultural lime assistance
(March 31, 1967); (b) Premium on pure bred sires (March 31, 1967); (c) Forestry agreements (March 31, 1967); (d) Hospital construction (March 31, 1968); (e) Campgrounds and picnic areas (March 31, 1967); (f) Roads to resources (payment of remaining entitlement under the program).
It is the intention of the federal government to introduce legislation to implement the above proposals as early as possible after the resumption of parliament in the autumn of this year. If your government has in mind the conclusion of arrangements along the lines we expect to be entering into with Quebec, I should appreciate it if you could let me know at your earliest convenience.
In developing these proposals, Mr. Premier, my colleagues and I have sought to find a formula which will meet, as far as possible, the various views which were expressed at the federal-provincial conference last March. For a province which wishes, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to contract out of all of the continuing programs I have referred to above one alternative is provided. For the province which wishes to receive lump sum payments for certain specific programs another alternative is provided. By means of this approach we hope a formula has been developed, to prevail during the period that our tax structure committee is at work, which is responsive to the necessities of Canadian federalism today and which, at the same time, will give the tax structure committee the maximum scope for its deliberations about longer term arrangements.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by L. B. Pearson.
Ottawa, August 15, 1964. The Honourable Jean Lesage, P.C., M.L.A., Prime Minister of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
My dear Prime Minister:
I refer to the discussions on contracting-out arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs which took place in Ottawa
[Stage Direction]
on June 8 and 9, 1964, pursuant to the decision of the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city from March 31 to April 2, 1964. I should like now to review with you the conclusions which emerged from these discussions in respect of the programs in which Quebec is at present participating. These conclusions are acceptable to me and my colleagues, and I submit them to you for your consideration and concurrence.
Our two governments are agreed, I believe, that it would be desirable to provide initially for an interim or transitional arrangement. Under such an interim arrangement, the province would maintain its present obligations in respect of programs which would be eligible for contracting-out. It would, in particular, continue to provide the services envisaged in them and to furnish to the federal government an accounting of the expenditures incurred under the programs. On the other hand, the federal contribution would, depending on the nature and size of each program, take the form either of equalized personal income tax abatements, subject to adjustments, or of cash payments. The length of the interim period would vary depending also on the circumstances of each program. More permanent contracting-out arrangements would be the subject of further negotiations at the appropriate time, taking into account, among other factors, the experience acquired during the interim period and such recommendations as the tax structure committee might formulate in the meantime on the subject of conditional grant and shared cost programs. Such arrangements might well prove to be part of a new approach to fiscal arrangements commencing in 1967.
The programs which the representatives of our two governments agreed would be eligible for contracting out fall into two categories, it seems to me. The first includes continuing programs which are concerned primarily with social objectives. Excluded from this category are programs involving non-recurring projects, such as capital, research, and demonstration projects. The second category includes a group of programs which are expected to be of limited duration.
It has been recognized from the beginning that the contracting-out arrangements that might be agreed between the federal and Quebec governments should be such as to be readily applicable to any province that might wish to avail itself of them. It was agreed furthermore that a contracting-out province would, during the interim period and subsequently, continue to participate in
federal-provincial bodies and meetings established for the purposes of consultation and co-ordination in fields of activity where contracting out would apply.
As regards the compensation, it was established that it would normally take the form of equalized personal income tax abatements in the case of well established programs which could be expected to continue indefinitely, and the form of cash payments in the case of smaller programs which might not be expected to continue indefinitely.
More specifically, it is proposed that: A. Among the programs to which contracting out would not apply are the following:
1.	Capital programs:	(a) Trans-Canada
highway; (b) Railway grade crossing; (c) Vocational training-capital assistance; (d) ARDA; (e) Municipal winter works.
2.	Current Programs: (a) Grants to 4-H clubs; (b) Grants to special fairs: (c) Compensation for animal disease losses; (d) Crop insurance; (e) Farm labour agreement; (f) Health grants (research and demonstration projects); (g) Public health research grant; (h) Training of unemployed; (i) Training in co-operation with industry; (j) Fisheries industries development.
3.	Emergency measures.
4.	Centennial of confederation.
B. The following continuing programs, which involve primarily social objectives, would be suitable for contracting out in return for compensation as indicated in the form of abatement of the federal income tax by a specified percentage, together with equalization to equate the yield of each percentage point to the average of the two provinces where it is highest. If programs involving a single abatement point were the only ones to which contracting out applied, compensation could take the form of a lump sum payment. In all cases the compensation would be subject to adjustments to bring the compensation to equal actual audited expenditures, and on the understanding that all the other conditions of the programs would be maintained during the interim period:
(a)	Hospital insurance:	interim period
until December 31, 1970; compensation to amount to 14 points.
(b)	Old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance: compensation for the three categorical welfare programs to amount to 2 points; the "base load" or welfare portion of unemployment assistance to be represented by an equalized abatement of 2 points on personal income tax, and remaining or

unemployment portion to continue on present basis; length of the interim period for four welfare programs to be governed by the timing of the establishment by the federal government of an integrated program of public assistance and, in any event, not to go beyond March 31, 1970.
(c)	Vocational training: student aid, vocational high school training, technician training, trade and occupational training (except those elements of the program which are agreed to be concerned with members of the labour force receiving further training), training of disabled, correspondence courses, training of technical teachers: interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
(d)	Health grants (excluding research and
demonstration projects):	general public
health, tuberculosis control, mental health, professional training, cancer control, medical rehabilitation and crippled children, child and maternal health, disability advisory services, blind pensioners treatment:	interim
period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
C. The following programs would be suitable for contracting-out for cash compensation on the understanding that the province would agree to continue to carry on a program of this nature during the interim period, and that the federal government would reserve the right to terminate the program in respect of which contracting out is arranged at the expiration of the interim period: (a) Agricultural lime assistance (March 31, 1967); (b) Premium on pure bred sires (March 3l' 1967); (c) Forestry agreements (March 31,
1967)	; (d) Hospital construction (March 31,
1968)	;	(e) Campgrounds and picnic areas
(March 31, 1967); (f) Roads to resources (payment of remaining entitlement under the program).
It is the intention of the federal government to introduce legislation to implement the above proposals as early as possible after the resumption of parliament in the autumn of this year. I should therefore be grateful if you would confirm your concurrence in them at your earliest convenience. It would be the intention of the government in the legislation both to authorize the interim agreement and to make the necessary changes in the income tax acts.
May I say, Mr. Prime Minister, that in discussing the above proposals with your representatives, we have sought to find a formula which will meet, as far as possible,
the various views which were expressed at the federal-provincial conference last March. As a result of our discussions, it will be possible for a province which wishes, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to contract out of all of the continuing programs I have referred to above. For the province which wishes to receive lump sum payments for only a limited number of programs another alternative is provided.
We trust that the formula we have developed to prevail during the period which our tax structure committee is at work, will be found to be responsive to the necessities of Canadian federalism today and will, at the same time, give the tax structure committee the maximum scope for its deliberations concerning longer term arrangements.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed
by
L. B. Pearson
THE PREMIER Halifax
August 17, 1964
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of August 15th concerning arrangements for contracting out of conditional grants and share cost programs.
We will study these arrangements and let you know if there is any further comment.
Your sincerely,
R. L. Stanfield.
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Building Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of Quebec
August 20, 1964.
Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Prime Minister:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 15 last concerning the application of the opting out formula respecting conditional grants and joint programs.
[Stage Direction]
I thank you for your letter and I intend to submit it to my colleagues at the next meeting of the Cabinet which will be held on August 26 next.
With kind regards, I remain
Yours truly,
Jean Lesage.

[Stage Direction]
Regina, Saskatchewan, August 21, 1964.
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have your letter of August 15, 1964 concerning contracting out arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs.
The government of Saskatchewan has no objection in principle to conditional grants as a method of initiating action in areas of joint jurisdiction; so we are not, in the interim period, interested in contracting out of type B programs. We do, however, find the administrative practices of certain of the agreements bothersome, so we would like to consider further some of the type C programs. In order to help us make a decision in this area, I would appreciate it if you could clarify the phrase "a contracting out province would agree to continue to carry on a program of this nature" in the last paragraph on page four. I would also be very much interested in the amount of cash compensation to be paid in respect of each of the type C programs.
Yours truly,
W. Ross Thatcher.


[Stage Direction]
Toronto, Ontario, August 21, 1964
Dear Mr. Pearson:
I have your letter of August 15 in which you review the conclusions which you reached subsequent to consultations held on June 8 and 9.
These propositions are receiving study and, as you suggest, I will correspond with you further at the earliest possible moment.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours sincerely, John P. Robarts
The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, P.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario

[Stage Direction]
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Winnipeg 1
September 4, 1964.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have received your letter of August 15 in which you outline the general terms to be followed in implementing your government's policies on "contracting out" of conditional grant and shared cost programs.
The government of Manitoba is more interested in the rationalization of our fiscal relationships but the particular "contracting out" programs concerned are receiving our attention. I shall inform you of our views at an early date.
Yours sincerely, Duff Roblin.
The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
[Stage Direction]
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of Quebec
September 9, 1964.
Hon. Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
Your letter of August 15 last concerning the application of the opting out formula respecting conditional grants and joint programs was studied by the cabinet of the Quebec government. As you express them, we agree with the conclusions which resulted from the exchange of opinions between the representatives of our governments, and I am pleased to say that the government of the province of Quebec confirms this agreement. With kind regards, I remain
Yours sincerely, Jean Lesage.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 18, 1965