1965-06-02

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 last I announced to the House the membership of the new special committee on corrections to study the entire treatment of offenders in Canada. With the permission of the House I should like to table today the names of 25 specialist consultants whom I promised would be attached to this committee, as well as the name of a fifth member of the committee itself.

Taking into consideration the decisive and dedicated role played in Canada by the forces of order for the protection of society, I wish to announce that I have now been able to secure the services, as an additional member of the committee, of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux who, a few days ago, retired from the R.C.M.P. Biographical sketches of the 25 consultants as well as the biography of Deputy Commissioner Lemieux are included in the document I am tabling today.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-112, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, it seems that since its advent the trucking industry has been neglected by the various governments, even though it contributes to the progress of the Canadian economy.
However, the Industrial Development Bank has already looked into the problem and only in the last few years the trucking industry has been able to benefit from the financial advantages offered by that organization to Canadian businessmen.
Our assistance program to small businesses should also consider the trucking industry in order that the latter may take advantage, on an equal basis and without any discrimination, along with other industries, of the benefits of that legislation.
Since the act was sanctioned in 1960, its provisions must be adjusted to the present situation and, to do that, it is important to increase the maximum amount of each loan and to extend the repayment periods.
The need for Canadian capital for the country's development is greater and businesses with a turnover of $300,000 a year should today be considered as small businesses.
The present act stipulates that the minister is not required to make any payment to a bank for any loss incurred when the total loans guaranteed by all the banks exceed $300 million.
Yet the annual report-


Some hon. Members:: Order, Order.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were public tenders called for the construction of a new radar station at Mill Cove, Lunenburg County, which is to be known as H.M.C.S. Blandford?
2.	What were the names of the contractors who tendered on this work and the amounts of the various bids?
3.	To which company was the contract awarded?
4.	When will construction be started and on what date is it estimated the project will be completed?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Public tenders called for Construction of Accommodation Building, Pumphouse and Outside Services, Blandford, N.S., closed on May 13, 1965.
2.	The following are the names of the contractors who tendered on this project and the amounts of the various bids: Acadian Con-

June 2, 1965
Questions
struction Co. Ltd., P.O. Box 39, Bridgewater, N.S., $1,126,500; Cameron Contracting Ltd., P.O. Box 2104, Halifax, N.S., $1,259,000; Eastern Contracting Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S., $1,149,700; Atlas Construction Co. Ltd., P.O. Box 7, Fredericton, N.B., $1,469,732.
3.	Contract not yet awarded.
4.	Cannot be estimated until such time as the contract is awarded.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government received representations urging an increase in the basic personal income tax exemptions and, if so, how many such representations have been received?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Yes, a total of 293.


RENEWAL OF LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT, BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): As a result of the investigation carried out by the Government, have or will the life ring and throw ropes on the wharf at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria County, N.S., be renewed and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Department has no record of any special investigation or of lifesaving equipment of the sort mentioned being provided on this wharf, but will look into the matter further.
A number of years ago it was departmental practice to maintain certain lifesaving equipment on public wharves but because of a continuing record of theft or destruction of this equipment, particularly at unsupervised points, this practice was largely discontinued.


INVESTIGATION INTO LAND ACQUISITIONS, MONTREAL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the government received complaints or information to the effect that land which will be required by the federal government in the Montreal area is being acquired for resale by certain individuals or corporations?
2.	Is the R.C.M.P. investigating such allegations at the present time and, if so, what lawyers or real estate agents are being investigated at the present time in this connection?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1.	No.
2.	No.


MAINTENANCE COSTS OF ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. Basford: Since the Alaska Highway was returned to Canada (a) what has been, in each year, the capital cost to the federal government of paving and relocation (b) what has been, in each year, the maintenance cost to the federal goverenment?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Public Works as follows;
(a)	Cost of paving: 1957-58, $351,380.75; 1958-59, $1,971,093.68; 1959-60, $762,084.58; 1960-61, $1,593,478.03; 1961-62, $1,104,029.52.
(b)	Costs of relocation were included in
total maintenance costs of: 1945-46, $188,344; 1946-47, $3,645,394.;	1947-48, $3,692,209.05;
1948-49, $5,395,828.73; 1949-50, $7,231,975.62; 1950-51, $7,032,924; 1951-52, $12,337,910; 195253, $13,138,018; 1953-54, $11,247,145; 1954-55, $13,880,120;	1955-56,	$11,687,920;	1956-57,$11,540,065; 1957-58, $11,905,653.25; 1958-59, $13,430,132.32; 1959-60, $14,382,061.42; 196061,	$12,167,521.97;	1961-62,	$11,698,970.48;
1962-63, $12,276,800; 1963-64, $10,839,774.
Since the Department of Public Works assumed the responsibilities of the Alaska Highway on April 1, 1964:	(a) Capital
(surveys only), $361,079; (b) Maintenance Cost, $8,309,375.


ICE DAMAGE TO LOBSTER TRAPS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Regan: 1.	What is the extent of damages to lobster traps along the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia caused by ice in the last two weeks?
2.	What notice was given to fishermen by officials that ice was moving in?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Transport as follows:
1.	On the section of the coast from Canso to Quoddy, the total loss of traps was 16,459 out of a total of 54,437 set. In one particular area Ecum Secum to Quoddy, close to 6,000 out of a total of 10,000 of the traps set were lost.
2.	Daily bulletins on ice conditions in the Halifax-Louisburg area were broadcast for the benefit of fishermen during the period April 8-13 and again subsequent to April 19. Bulletins were not issued during April 14-18 as ice was not expected to move inshore at that time.
June 2, 1965


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND OLDER WORKERS PROGRAMS IN QUEBEC DISTRICTS
Mr. Dionne: 1.	What was the total number of workers hired through the National Employment Service in the Districts of Riviere-du-Loup and Montmagny, in 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	How many workers 45 years of age and over were hired under the Older Workers Employment Incentive Program in the district served by the National Employment Office in Riviere-du-Loup and Montmagny?
3.	What were the conclusions reached from the study made by the Minister of Labour into conditions relating to this program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	The total number of workers hired through the National Employment Service in the Districts of Riviere-du-Loup and Montmagny for the years in question were as follows: Riviere-du-Loup: 1962, 8,246; 1963, 10,201; 1964, 15,647. Montmagny: 1962, 1,335; 1963, 1,498; 1964, 1,278.
2.	The number of workers 45 years of age and over hired under the Older Worker Employment and Training Incentive Program were in Riviere-du-Loup, 13 and Montmagny, one.
3.	The Older Worker Employment and Training Incentive Program proved to be a worthwhile experiment. In addition to supplying employment for 1,948 workers aged 45 and over, a considerable amount of knowledge concerning the causes of long term unemployment among the older group was obtained.
The conclusion was that other factors in addition to age were frequently the cause of lengthy unemployment. Any future action on behalf of this group must include greater educational efforts to discourage such age discrimination as still exists. A great deal of individual attention is also required through assessment, guidance and vocational services suited to the individual need.


LAY-OFFS AT CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	During the month of March 1965, how many employees were laid off at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park and, of those laid off, how many were veterans?
2.	What was the reason in each instance for their dismissal?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Thirty one employees, including 17 veterans.
2.	The lay-off was caused by the completion of the winter program and by weather
Questions
conditions which did not permit the commencement of the program scheduled for the new fiscal year.


PERSONS WORKING WITH INDIANS AND ESKIMOS
Mr. Orlikowt: 1.	Are there government grants available for training teachers to work amongst Indians and Eskimos and, if so, what is the amount provided in the estimates, and how many people can be trained?
2.	How many employees are there working for the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in isolated areas and, of these, how many are Eskimos?
3.	How many employees are there working for the Indian Affairs Branch as Indian agents, placement officers, research officers, etc., and, of these, how many are Indians?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	Yes; the government of the Northwest Territories provides grants and loans to any high school graduate of the Northwest Territories who wishes to attend university or a teacher training school and can qualify for admission. While these grants are not restricted to teachers in training, some of the students will undoubtedly choose careers in teaching in the Northwest Territories. In addition, teachers now on strength are granted leave with pay for special training courses, and in-service training programs are arranged.
Since grants are provided under a program which is not limited to teachers, and in-service training is a part of normal administration activities, there is no way of isolating the number of teachers or potential teachers involved, or the specific cost.
Teachers employed by Indian Affairs Branch to teach in Indian schools operated by the Federal Government are trained in provincial training institutes. No special grant is usually provided for this teacher training although the universities offering this training do receive federal grants.
In-service training is provided by the Branch for teachers employed in Indian schools. Where this in-service training is offered at a university, an amount of $8 a day for living expenses may be paid to teachers taking these special orientation courses. There will be 105 teachers attending such courses at the universities of Manitoba and Saskatchewan this summer. No specific amount has been provided in the Estimates but disbursements are paid from funds allotted for the

June 2, 1985
Questions
administration, operation and maintenance o 1 Indian schools.
2.	The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has 974 classified, prevailing rate or seasonal employees and 359 teachers in the north; many of these are Eskimos, but no breakdown of employees by ethnic origin is maintained.
3.	There are 2,537 employees working for the Indian Affairs Branch at Headquarters and in the field as administrative officers, Indian Superintendents, teachers, placement officers, research officers, social workers, clerks and in other established positions, and of these, departmental records indicate that 290 are Indians.


GRANT APPLICATIONS TO MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Medical Research Council get in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Medical Research Council?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Medical Research Council were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1. During the three year period 1962-65, the Medical Research Council received the following number of applications for operating and equipment grants to finance research projects: 1962-63, 514; 1963-64, 605; 1964-65, 687.
2.	Total dollar value of grants requested: 1962-63, $4,842,143.48; 1963-64, $6,089,697.40; 1964-65, $7,904,743.16.
3.	Applications approved in full: 1962-63, 203; 1963-64, 203; 1964-65, 226.
4.	Applications approved in part: 1962-63, 245; 1963-64, 287; 1964-65, 347.
5.	Applications rejected: 1962-63, 66; 198364, 115; 1964-65, 114.
6.	Committees of experts assess all applications and then endeavour to award the available money in the most effective way. Since the money available is always less than that applied for, it is necessary to give priority to those projects which appear to be the most promising and the most useful.


FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS, MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: How many loans were made to fishermen in the Province of Manitoba during the fiscal years 196364 and 1964-65 under the Fisheries Improvement

Loans Act, giving the number of loans for each year and total amount of loans?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: During the fiscal year 1963-64 no loans were made in Manitoba under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. During the fiscal year 1964-65 two loans were made for a total amount of $7,500.


ASSISTANCE TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Mr. Stefanson: What special assistance is the federal government giving to areas designated as rural development areas under ARDA?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Under the new Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement now being signed with the provinces, special assistance is provided to Rural Development Areas and to Special Rural Development Areas under two Parts of the Agreement.
Rural Development Areas are rural areas jointly agreed to by the federal Minister and the provincial Minister, which are subject to low income, underemployment, and other disadvantage. Normally, they are areas where over 50 per cent of the families have incomes of less than $3,000 per year. In such areas Canada will share half the cost of land development enterprises, including forest stand improvement on Crown or other public authority forest land; the provision of financial or other assistance to farm or wood-lot operators to undertake recreation and wildlife projects on existing holdings; the development on existing farms in need of special assistance of land now unimproved but suitable for agriculture for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the farm operation; the undertaking of primary fisheries development projects not provided for in other federal or federal-provincial programs consistent with the intent of the program; the development of the tourist industry through the provision of public recreation areas including basic infrastructure facilities in conformity with an overall plan.
In addition, Canada will make a grant to a Province based on $3 per rural family in Rural Development Areas for projects to increase income and employment opportunities in cases where such projects are not allowed elsewhere in the ARDA Agreement.
Special Rural Development Areas are areas jointly recognized which are subject to widespread low income; have major adjustment problems, and have recognized development potentials. They are recognized after research
June 2, 1965

has been done in these areas; a comprehensive development plan has been drawn, and a special program agreement entered into to implement the development program. These agreements allow tor projects provided for elsewhere in the ARDA Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement, including programs for research, land use and farm adjustment, rehabilitation, soil and water conservation, and so on; projects allowed for in Rural Development Areas, and in addition major developmental projects under the Comprehensive Plan.
These major developmental projects may be financed from a special $50 million Fund for Rural Economic Development provided for in the Agreement.
In addition, the federal government is financing the full cost of research and studies in one area in each province leading to the drawing of a development plan.


COST OF FEDERAL SERVICES TO INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: What are the costs of Indian services to the Federal Government for health, welfare, education, and economic development?


Maurice Lamontagne: The answer from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the fiscal year 1363-64 is as follows: Welfare, $13,588,704; Education, $31,291,880; Economic development, $3,535,670.
The cost of providing health services to Indians by the Medical Services Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare during 1964-65 was approximately (final figures not yet available): Operation and Maintenance, $21,640,000; Capital, $800,000; Total, $22,440,000.
Under the Welfare Grants Program of the Department of National Health and Welfare the only project in 1964-65 relating specifically to Indians was one submitted by the Province of Ontario for the development of welfare service to Indian communities in Northern Ontario. The federal payment toward the cost of this project was $17,595.


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING CAPITAL GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the requests of the Canadian Universities Foundation made in their Brief to the Prime Minister in May, 1963 "that the Parliament of Canada enact legislation authorizing expenditure of $300 million for matching capital grants to universities and colleges for projects on which commitments are made between July 1, 1963 and June 30, 1966"; and "that
Questions
the federal grant for each approved capital project be equal to not more than 50% of the cost of the project"; and "that in each of the years 196364, 1964-65 and 1955-66 a grant of $500,000 be made by the Government of Canada to the Government of Nova Scotia for distribution to the universities of that Province, and a grant of $200,000 be made to the Government of New Brunswick for distribution to the universities of that Province"?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Since this request was first made, the Canadian Universities' Foundation has, as has already been mentioned in this House, established a Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dean V. W. Bladen, to assess the financial needs of Canadian institutions of higher learning and study the most appropriate methods of meeting these needs adequately. The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech on April 26, has clearly indicated that the government is anxious to discuss the subject of university financing with the provinces and examine with them the findings of the Bladen Commission with a view to reaching agreement on some new and more effective co-ordinated approach to the financing of universities throughout the country.


EMPLOYMENT AT POINT EDWARD COAST GUARD COLLEGE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
How many employees of the Point Edward Naval Base who have already been released or will be released as a result of the closure of the ship repair depot will receive employment at the Canadian Coast Guard College to be established at Point Edward?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Canadian Coast Guard College which constitutes only a small portion of the Point Edward Naval Base will have five positions to which suitable and qualified personnel being released from the Department of National Defence may be assigned. As the Department of Transport will also assume responsibility for the site management and provision of services and utilities for the former Point Edward Naval Base, 28 positions will be required for this purpose, a total of 33 positions. These positions are in addition to the jobs expected to be available in Canadian Motor Industries Limited as reported by the Associate Minister of National Defence on April 28.


WARNING OF ICE DRIFT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Lloyd: 1.	Were warnings given in April by either the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Transport that drift ice was threatening the in-

June 2, 1S65
Questions
shore fishery between Canso and Quoddy in Nova Scotia and, if so, on what occasions and through what media?
2.	Will the government consider making ice warning information available to weather forecast broadcasters in the period from April 10 to May 1, each year?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Department of Transport as follows:
1.	Daily Ice Bulletins covering the area between Canso and Quoddy were issued during the period April 8-13 and again subsequent to April 19. These Bulletins were broadcast on the C.B.C. Fishermen's Broadcast and by the Marine Radio Station at Canso, N.S.
2.	Arrangements have been made for daily issue of Ice Bulletins when ice is known to be present off the Nova Scotia coast and for wider dissemination of such information through press news services and all radio stations in Eastern Nova Scotia.
GRANTS TO AFTER CARE AGENCIES Quesion No. 321-Mr. Maiheson:
What voluntary after care agencies qualified for Department of Justice grants in 1964 and in what amounts?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: John Howard Society of Newfoundland, $3,220; John Howard Society of Nova Scotia, $7,220; John Howard Society of New Brunswick, $4,750; John Howard Society of Prince Edward Island, $1,750; John Howard Society of Quebec, Que., $9,400; Catholic Rehabilitation Service, Montreal, $4,200; Service de Readaptation Sociale, Quebec, $5,150; Service Social d'Amos, $1,350; Service Social Regional de Chateau-guay, $200; Service Social du Diocese de Chicoutimi, $800; Service Social du Diocese de Gaspe, $300; Service Social de Hull, $2,200; Service Social de Joliette, $1,200; Service Familial de la Rive-Sud, Levis, $400; Service Social du comte de Megantic, $450; Service Social du Diocese de Nicolet, $900; Service Social du Diocese de Rimouski, $450; Service Social de Saguenay, $200; Service Social de l'Enfance et de la Famille Ste-Anne de la Pocatiere, $100; Service Social du Ste-Ger-maine, $500; Service Social du Diocese de St-Hyacinthe, $700; Service Social du Diocese de St-Jean de Quebec, $1,400; Service Social du Diocese de St-Jerome, $2,200; Service Social de Beauce, St. Joseph de Beauce, $100; Le Centre de Service Social du Diocese de Trois-Rivieres, $1,950; Service Social du Diocese de Valleyfield, $800; Societe d'Orientation et de Rehabilitation Sociale, Montreal, $22,600; Le Centre de Service Social du Diocese de Sher-

brooke, Inc, $1,650; Council of Catholic Charities of Toronto, $1,800; Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston, $7,250; Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto, $1,350; Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, $200; John Howard Society of Ontario, $36,850; John Howard Society of Thunder Bay, $200; John Howard Society of Manitoba, $11,290; Catholic Welfare Bureau, Winnipeg, $700; John Howard Society of Saskatchewan, $9,800; John Howard Society of Alberta, $14,550; John Howard Society of British Columbia (including John Howard Society of Vancouver Island), $16,420; The Salvation Army, $16,000; St. Leonard's House, Windsor, $1,500; John Howard Society of Canada, $4,000; Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies (Quebec Division), $3,000.


GRANTS FOR TRAINING OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has been allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work?
2.	How many people are now at recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants?
3. What are the amounts of the bursaries provided?
4.	Has any money been allocated for research projects in the field of social service?
5.	Have any plans been developed for research into appropriate use of sub-professional staff in the field of social welfare?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. In 1964-65
$1,000,000 was provided for all the provisions of the National Welfare Grants program of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In that year $217,627 was spent to assist persons to take full time graduate social work training at Schools of Social Work.
2.	In the current academic year, 177 persons are being assisted under the National Welfare Grants program to take graduate social work training.
3.	The bursary, training grants, scholarship and fellowship provisions are used to assist persons taking social work training. Costs of bursaries and training grants are shared with the Provinces. Scholarships and fellowships are a 100 per cent federal responsibility.
The amount of a bursary is determined by the provincial welfare authorities. The federal government shares up to a maximum of $1,500 for a calendar year, plus $500 for dependants. The provincial welfare authorities also determine the amount of training grants with the federal share not to exceed $4,000 for a calendar year, plus $500 for
June 2, 1965

dependants. These grants are reduced proportionately for periods less than one year. Necessary travel costs are also paid.
Scholarships and fellowships are awarded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The maximum amount of a scholarship is $2,000 for a calendar year, plus $500 for dependants. The maximum amount of a fellowship is $4,000 for a calendar year, plus $500 for dependants. These awards are reduced proportionately for periods less than one year. Necessary travel costs are also paid.
4.	In 1964-65, research projects totalling $105,822 were approved and of that amount $81,233 was actually spent.
5.	In 1964-65, $9,000 was made available for a research proposal, the purpose of which is to determine how welfare manpower resources can be more effectively classified and used in the field of social welfare.


NET DEBT AND TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Of Canada's net debt (a) what percentage has been borrowed from Canadian investors (b) what amount has been borrowed from U.S. investors (c) what amount has been borrowed from other countries?
2.	Since the sales tax on building materials and production machinery was levied in 1963, how much tax was collected in the year 1963 and in the year 1964?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of
Trade and Commerce and National Revenue as follows:
1.	At the end of 1962 the long term funded debt of Canadian governments, municipalities, and corporations was owned 82 per cent by residents of Canada, 15 per cent by residents of the United States and 3 per cent by residents of other countries.
2.	Sales tax applicable to building materials and production machinery is not segregated. Such tax is included in the total sales tax collected in the two years mentioned. The total sales tax collected in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, was $1,147,115,849, and in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, $1,322,714,056.


RAILWAY TRACKS ON PUBLIC WHARF, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton Norih and Victoria): Has any further consideration been given by the government to the installation of railway tracks on the new public wharf at North Sydney, N.S., which would accommodate shipment of goods to 22620-120
Questions
St. Pierre-Miquelon and other areas and, if not. for what reason?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes.


GRANT TO I.O.D.E. INDIAN CENTRE, TORONTO
Mr. Howard: Does the government, or any agency, department or branch thereof, make any grant, donation, gift, loan or other transmission of money to, or for the operation of the Indian Centre operated by the I.O.D.E. at 603 Church Street in Toronto and, if so, for each fiscal year since and including
1961-62, what was, with respect to each such grant, donation, gift, or loan (a) its amount (b) its purpose (c) its repayment arrangement, if any, and (d) whether or not any accounting for its expenditure was made to the government?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	The Citizenship Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has made grants to the agency known as The Canadian Indian Centre of Toronto located at 603 Church Street, Toronto 5, Ontario; this agency holds a Provincial Charter and is incorporated without share capital under the laws of Ontario.
(a)	1961-62, Nil; 1962-63, $4,000; 1963-64, $4,000; 1964-65, $5,000. (b) To assist people of Indian ancestry make the difficult adjustment from the rural to the urban way of life,
(c)	The grants were not made on a recoverable basis, (d) The Canadian Indian Centre of Toronto has provided the Citizenship Branch with statements showing the actual revenues and expenditures for 1963, and 1964, and estimated figures for 1965.


TRAINING GRANTS TO PSYCHIATRISTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many psychiatrists in training for the current year are in receipt of training grants from the federal government?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of the grants?
4.	What are the plans for next year's grants?
5.	What commitments have been made for the next five years to the universities and the medical colleges in the field of mental health?
6.	What requests have been made by the medical colleges for the next five years in the field of mental health?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Under the National Health Grants, 63 psychiatrists are in receipt of training grants from the Department of National Health and Welfare during the current fiscal year. It is anticipated that the number of psychiatrists in receipt of training grants will increase substantially as

June 2. 1865
Questions
applications for the 1905-66 academic year are processed within the next few months.
2.	Payments to trainees in psychiatry under the National Health Grants are made by the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows:
(a)	The amount of a bursary to a trainee taking professional training is determined by the Province according to the needs of the individual, but bursaries do not exceed $250 monthly for persons without dependants and $300 for persons with dependants. A trainee may also receive travel expenses to and from the place of training once during the training period, transportation costs to and from the place of training when the trainee is on field work outside his training centre, tuition fees as actually charged by the training institution, and an allowance for books and technical supplies not exceeding $50 for the full course. It is understood that the Provinces in certain cases supplement the federal assistance.
(b)	For training courses which do not exceed three months actual reasonable living expenses may be requested. Living expenses must be accounted for on the basis of provincial regulations governing travelling and maintenance expenses.
3.	For 1965-66, $70,946 is being allocated for the training of the 63 psychiatrists mentioned in answer 1.
4.	Provincial plans for the submission to the Department of National Health and Welfare of projects under the National Health Grants next year are presently under study in all Provinces. The submission of projects and consultations with provincial planners will begin in December of this year.
5.	See answers 4 and 6.
6.	Annual submissions of projects by the Provinces on behalf of training, research, and health services in medical colleges request the continuance of federal assistance in subsequent years, although a five year period is not always specified.


COST OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the direct cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are available including hospital care, medical care and medication?
2.	What is the indirect cost of mental illness in Canada for the last year for which figures are available as a result of loss of earnings by patients in hospitals and patients from industry?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The total direct cost of mental illness is unknown. The operating

expenditures reported by public mental institutions in 1963 amounted to $159,726,000. The operating cost of psychiatric care in general hospitals for that year, excluding medical care, can be estimated at $20,750,000. The direct cost of medical care and medication outside mental institutions is not known.
2. Information on the indirect cost of mental illness in Canada is not available.


LOANS UNDER SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT, MANITOBA
Mr. Sfefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made under the Small Businesses Loans Act assented to December 20, 1960, to date, In the Province of Manitoba, giving total amount of loans and average size of loan?
2.	How many loans and what is the total amount of loans made in the following fiscal years 1961-62,
1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 for the following areas: metropolitan Winnipeg, Brandon, Flin Flon, Portage la Prairie, Dauphin, Selkirk and Thompson?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act in the province of Manitoba during the period from inception to February 28, 1965: number of loans made, 595; total amount of loans, $4,728,011; average size of loans, $7,946. Information subsequent to February 28, 1965 is not yet available.
2. Information on loans is maintained by provinces but not by municipalities.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROJECTS, GUYS-BOROUGH COUNTY. N.S.
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	Is any work to be done in 1965-66 in Guys-borough County, Nova Scotia, under the Roads to Resources Agreement?
2.	If so, what work and where?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2. No
work is planned by the Provincial Government of Nova Scotia in Guysborough County in 1965-66 under the Roads to Resources Agreement.


EMPLOYMENT OF WILFRID PELLETIER
Mr. Howard: 1.	Is one Wilfred Pelletier employed by any agency, department or branch of government and, if so, what are (a) his duties (b) his salary (c) the date upon which he commenced employment (d) his qualifications, and (e) the name of his predecessor?
2.	Was the said Mr. Pelletier employed as a result of a competition?
3.	Was Mr. Wilfrid Pelletier Executive Director of the National Indian Council?
4.	Did the said National Indian Council receive any money from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in 1964 and, if so (a) what was the
June 2, 1965

amount of such money (b) was the disbursement of such money accounted for by any audit submitted to the government?
5.	For what period of time will the said Mr. Pelletier be employed by the government?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Centennial Commission and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	Yes, by the Centennial Commission; (a) Under the supervision of the Indian Centennial Advisory Committee, to act as National Co-ordinator of Indian Participation in Centennial programs; (b) and (c) From March 1 to April 11, 1965 employed under contract for $900. Placed on Centennial Commission staff at $7,980 per annum on April 12, 1965; (d) Was executive director of the National Indian Council at time of appointment. Possesses a broad knowledge of Indians, speaks several dialects, and through his work in the National Indian Council, has established lines of communication with many Indian groups across Canada, (e) Had no predecessor.
2.	Yes; the selection committee, comprising representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Centennial Commission.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) The Department of Citizenship and Immigration granted a total of $10,651.47 to the National Indian Council in the following amounts: Indian Affairs Branch, $7,000.00, May 6, 1964; Citizenship Branch, $3,000.00, July 14, 1964; Indian Affairs Branch, $651.47, December 16, 1964. (b) As there were outright grants, no audits were required. The National Indian Council did, however, submit statements of disbursements.
5.	During pleasure.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR CANADIANS IN MAINE
Mr. Berger: Has the State of Maine refused to be party to a reciprocal agreement with Canada in the matter of Unemployment Insurance benefits to Canadian employees working in that State and, if so (a) what steps does the government intend to take in order to protect these workers (b) when might such measures be expected to come into effect (c) what is the total number of employees thus affected and for Montmagny-L'Islet in particular.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: Yes, the State of Maine has refused to be a party to a reciprocal agreement with Canada, (a) and (b) This matter comes wholly within the jurisdiction of the State 22620-1201
Questions
of Maine and nothing at present can be done as contributions for these workers are paid to that state, (c) The number of employees affected is not available either in total or for Montmagny-L'Islet.


GRANTING OF TITLE &quot;QUEEN'S COUNSEL&quot;
Mr. Scoff: 1.	What are the requirements and under what authority does the Minister of Justice recommend that members of the legal profession, be granted the term "Queen's Counsel"?
2.	During the last ten years how many such "Queen's Counsel" designations have been granted and to whom?
3.	In each case what were the considerations involved in awarding such "Queen's Counsel"?
4.	Die any person or persons write the government and/or the Minister of Justice asking that such persons be granted the designation of "Queen's Counsel" and, if so, who and on what dates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The requirement of appointment of a Queen's Counsel is
membership in the Bar of one of the Provinces or Territories for a period of at least ten years. Appointments of Queen's Counsel by the Governor in Council, are made under the authority of the royal prerogative.
2.	21, as follows: John Donald Affleck, Ottawa, Ont., 13 May, 1955; Wilfrid Mayfield Cory, Toronto, Ont., 13 May, 1955; David Howard Woodhouse Henry, Ottawa, Ontario, 13 May, 1955; Allen Joseph MacLeod, Ottawa, Ontario, 13 May 1955; Max Hirsch Wershof, Ottawa^ Ontario, 16 June, 1955; John Colin Armour Campbell, Ottawa, Ontario, 23 February, 1956; William Hugh Masson Wardrope, Ottawa, Ontario, 7 March, 1957; Guy Roberge, Ottawa, Ontario, 25 April, 1957; Thomas George Street, Ottawa, Ontario, 17 November, I960; Donald Spencer Maxwell, Ottawa, Ontario, 30 January, 1962; Donald Scarth Thorson, Ottawa, Ontario, 30 January, 1962; Solomon Samuels, Ottawa, Ontario, 30 January, 1962; Erik Nielsen, Whitehorse, Y.T., 22 March, 1962; Paul M. Ollivier, Hull, P.Q., 17 July, 1963; Donald
S.	Christie, Ottawa, Ontario, 17 July, 1963; Jacques Fortier, Ottawa, Ontario, 14 August, 1963; John J. Quinlan, Ottawa, Ontario, 14 August, 1963; C. Robert O. Munro, Ottawa, Ontario, 14 August, 1963; Marguerite M. Ritchie, Ottawa, Ontario, 14 August, 1963; Hon. Julia V. LaMarsh, Ottawa, Ontario, 21 December, 1963; N. Victor K. Wylie, Whitehorse, Y.T., 9 July, 1964.
3.	Suitability.
4.	One such request, marked "personal and confidential" was received by the Minister of Justice.

June 2, 1988
Questions


FORT AMHERST PARK-PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What projects are to be undertaken in the Fort Amherst Historical Park in 1965?
2.	Is reconstruction of the historic Fort Amherst contemplated and, if so, when is it intended to begin excavation and reconstruction?
3.	What archaeologists, historians and geologists have made on the spot studies of Fort Amherst Historical Park?


Arthur Laing: 1. None
planned.
2.	The results of current documentary research will dictate the extent to which reconstruction can be contemplated. It will not be possible to initiate any such work before 1967.
3.	The staff archaeologist of the Canadian Historic Sites Division undertook a two-month excavation with a crew of 12 in 1963.
Preliminary documentary research was initiated by the Division in 1963 to assist in the production of ground interpretation signs to be erected this summer. Full scale research is now in progress on the history of the Fort and is expected to be finished by early fall. A topographical survey was carried out on behalf of the Department in 1963. No geological work was done or is contemplated as far as this Department is concerned.


BRIDGE ACROSS HARBOUR, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. MacQuarrie: 1.	Has a decision been made to construct a bridge across Rustico Harbour to complete the Gulf Shore Highway in the P.E.I. National Park?
2.	If so, what type of bridge is to be built and when will construction commence?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2. No
decision has been made to construct a bridge across Rustico Harbour. Ice wind and tides have caused considerable scouring and erosion of this area in the past. These problems have
been under study by the National Research Council and the results of this study are presently being assessed by the Department of Public Works. A complete report on this problem is expected shortly.


PROVISION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES FOR UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money did the National Research Council provide for research equipment and supplies for Canadian universities last year?
2.	How much was requested by the universities for such equipment and supplies from the National Research Council?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to correcting the situation described in the Report of the Chairman of the Medical Research Council for 1962-63 as "the great shortage of research laboratories" which is "actively interfering with further progress", and also that "the serious drain of our competent scientists to the United States is not due to the higher scale of American salaries. It is due rather to the shortage of research laboratory space in Canada, and to the lack of funds for salaries with which to pay an adequate number of medical scientists and to support their research"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answers in so far as the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, is concerned, are as follows:
1 and 2. The National Research Council does not make grants to universities but to individuals at universities. The money provided last year for grants in aid of research at Canadian universities is in two categories,
i.e. science and engineering and medical. There are three types of grants for these categories, operating, major equipment and major installations. The operating grants cover salaries of assistants to professors, equipment and supplies. The other types of grants are self explanatory. Information is not available as to the exact amount of operating grants spent for research equipment and supplies. However, it is estimated that about 40 per cent of the grants is for this purpose. The amounts provided last year (1964-65) are as follows:
		Major	Major
Operating	equipment	installationsScience and Engineering	$ 9,375,000	$2,738,000	$836,000Medical	4,598,000	581,000	NilTotal	$13,973,000	$3,319,000	$836,000

June 2, 1985

Questions
The amounts requested last year (1964- 65) by the universities were as follows:
Science and Engineering Medical
Operating

Major
equipment

Major
installations

Nil
Total
$21,341,000	$7,883,000	$1,417,000
3.	No funds for the construction of university buildings are provided through the Medical Research Council. The Medical Research Council does, however, provide salaries for a group of full time medical scientists located in university laboratories. The government has provided funds for medical research in accordance with long established policy, but has not provided additional funds, through the Medical Research Council, specifically for the construction and equipping of new medical research laboratories or for the salaries of full-time scientists. At the present time the Medical Research Council is planning to continue a fairly rapid expansion of its program for personnel support and grants in aid of research.


WINTER HOME CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many applications were received for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction program in (a) 1963-64 (b) 1964-65?
2.	How many qualified for this bonus during
1963-64 and during 1964-65?
3.	What was the total cost of this program in
advertising, including all media, in (a)	1963-64
(b) 1964-65?
4.	What was the total cost to the government of this program, including the $500 bonus, in (a) 1963-64 (b) 1964-65?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Winter House Building Incentive Program				
	1963-64	and 1964-65		
		1963-64		1964-65
		Program		Program
1.	Applications			
	received	32,668		33,806
2.	Applications			
	qualified	24,534		28,174
3.	Dwelling units			
	qualified	28,096		33,159
4.	Total cost of ad-			
	vertising (All			
	media) $	227,400	$	152,101
5.	Total cost to			
	government $ 14,382,720		$	17,137,273
			(Estimated)


CENTENNIAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS, MONTMAGNY-L'ISLET CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Berger: 1.	How many applications were made by towns and municipalities in the constituency of Mont-magny-L'Islet under joint programs relating to Centennial of Confederation celebrations in 1967?
2.	How many applications were approved and what was the nature of each?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No applications relating to projects in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet had been received from the Quebec Centennial Committee as at May 11, 1965.
2.	N/A.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS APPROVED, LEVIS COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What projects concerning Canada's Centennial were approved for Levis County?
2.	What municipalities are concerned in the projects?
3.	On what date was approval given to such projects and what amounts were approved?
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
State): 1. The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications relating to projects in the constit-municipalities in any constituency. No applications relating to projects in the consti-uency of Levis had been received from the Quebec Centennial Committee as at May 12, 1965.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.

June 2, 1985
Questions


EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mr. Canielon: Is it the intention of the government to implement any of the recommendations of the Gill report and, in particular, to place certain occupational groups such as teachers under the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The recommendations of the Gill Committee, including the extension of coverage to certain occupational groups, will be duly considered when the Unemployment Insurance Act is revised.


AVIATION CONTROL TOWERS, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In the Province of Quebec, how many control towers are there to serve both military and civil aviation, and where are such control towers located?
2.	Is it required of those in charge of such control towers that they be bilingual?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1 and 2.
The Department of Transport operates five control towers in the Province of Quebec, namely, Montreal International, Cartierville, Quebec City, Sept lies and Baie Comeau, and at each of these control towers the Officer in charge is bilingual. When it becomes necessary to change these personnel every possible effort is made to replace them with other bilingual staff. There are three military control towers in the Province of Quebec, viz., St. Hubert, Bagotville and Val d'Or, and the Department has been informed that, where bilingual personnel are available, preference is given to them in staffing these towers.


LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PILOT'S LICENCE, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In the Province of Quebec, are candidates for a pilot's licence required to speak English and, if not, are they required to know at least certain English terms frequently used in aviation?
2.	Are the same requirements made of English speaking candidates with regard to the French language?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The
answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part is, yes.
2. Yes.


PROPOSED TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION, LEVIS-QUEBEC
Mr. Dionne: Has the Department of Public Works received representations regarding construction of a tunnel between the Cities of Levis and Quebec and, if so, what steps has the Department taken?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. The department's replies have outlined that the policy followed is that transportation links within a province are generally a provincial responsibility, and the federal government would be concerned with the approval of such works, having regard to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


DOUGLAS POINT GENERATING STATION
Mr. Stenson: 1.	When did the government approve the Douglas Point generating station project and when was work on the site started?
2.	When will this generating station be completed?
3.	What was the estimated date of completion by Atomic Energy of Canada when this job was started?
4.	What was the original estimate of the cost of this proposed station?
5.	What is now the estimated cost of this station? Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):
In so far as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned:
1.	June 16th, 1959
2.	Mid 1966.
3.	In service 1965.
4.	$86,112,000 including first fuel charge.
5.	$86,112,000 including first fuel charge.


BUSINESS MERGERS
Mr. Maiher: What was the number of business mergers in Canada in the years 1944, 1954 and 1964?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Companies and Corporations Branch of my Department do not keep records with regards to the number of business mergers in Canada.


ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGN CENTRE, TORONTO
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	When was the Design Centre set up in the Colonnade, Bloor Street, Toronto, by the Department of Industry?
2.	What is the purpose of this Centre, and how many are employed in it?
3.	What rental is paid for the accommodation and to whom?
June 2, 1965


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. March 2, 1964 by the National Design Council and the Department of Industry.
2.	(a) The Centre is a permanent place of exhibition for products of superior Canadian design and manufacture, (b) Five.
3.	Annual rental is $39,840 and is paid to 131 Bloor St. W. Ltd.


GAME OFFICERS, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1- What are the present job classifications, including pay ranges, of game officers serving with the federal government in the Northwest Territories?
2.	How many such positions are there at present and where are these field officers located?
3.	When were the present job classifications originally established?
4.	How many of these employees have reached the maximum increment level of their present pay ranges?
_ 5. What is the total number of years of service in the North of the present incumbents in the game officers service?
6.	Has the government given consideration to upgrading the job classifications of these officers and, if so, what decision has been taken, and, if not will the government undertake such a review?


Arthur Laing: 1. The present job classifications and pay ranges of federal game officers serving in the Northwest Territories are: Biologist 3, $7,560 to $9,000; Technical Officer 4, $6,480 to $7,140; Technical Officer 3, $5,910 to $6,630; Technical Officer 2, $4,860 to $5,580.
2.	There are 11 such positions at present and they are located at Fort Smith, Yellowknife, Fort Resolution, Fort Norman, Fort Rae, Hay River, Fort Simpson, Fort Mac-Pherson, Aklavik, Northwest Territories, and Churchill, Manitoba.
3.	The present job classifications were established as follows: 1 Biologist 3 and 4 Technical Officer 2, April 1, 1957; 3 Technical Officer 2, April 1, 1958; 1 Technical Officer 4, April 1, 1960; 1 Technical Officer 4, March 31, 1962; 1 Technical Officer 3, April 1, 1963.
4.	Three.
5.	The total number of years of service in the north of the present game officer incumbents varies with individuals from 3 months to 20 years and 9 months. The aggregate total number of years of service in the North is 113 years and 10 months for the 11 officers.
6.	The Civil Service Commission has recently established the Bureau of Classification Revision to develop and implement a comprehensive new classification plan which, when completed in July 1967, will provide
Questions
a new system of classification for all civil servants.


REPRESENTATIONS OF OFFICE EMPLOYEES UNION RESPECTING HALL COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government received representations from the Office Employees International Union, urging early and effective legislative action on the Hall Commission Report and, if so, what has been the reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the far reaching program and financial considerations involved in the many recommendations contained in the Hall Report; stated that the Department of National Health and Welfare was actively engaged in a detailed study and analysis of the recommendations; and expressed the hope that as a result of these studies the Government would be in a position to place concrete proposals before the Provinces in the not too distant future.


DUTIES COLLECTED FROM CANADIANS RETURNING FROM U.S.
Mr. Marcoux: For each of the last five years and for each Canadian port of entry, what amounts have been collected as customs duty by the Department of National Revenue from Canadian citizens returning from the U.S.A.?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: This information is not available. No separation is made in statistics between dutiable importations of Canadian citizens returning to Canada from the U.S.A. and dutiable importations from that country by other importers.


EXTENSION OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL VOCATIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Douglas: Has any extension been made or is any extension contemplated in the Federal-Provincial Vocational Technical Agreement which is scheduled to expire on March 31, 1966?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No extension has been made to the federal-provincial Technical and Vocational Training Agreement which is scheduled to expire on March 31, 1967. The Vocational Training Advisory Council has, however, recommended that this question be given early consideration and a decision on the subject will be announced in due course.

June 2, 1985
Questions


FISHERIES MINISTER'S OFFICE, BATHURST, N.B.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Does the Minister of Fisheries maintain an office in Bathurst, New Brunswick, separate and apart from the Department of Fisheries office in the Federal Building, Bathurst, New Brunswick?
2.	If so (a) where is it located (b) what staff is employed in this office (c) what are the duties of the person or persons employed in this office (d) what are the names of the person or persons employed in this office (e) what is the salary paid to this person or persons employed in the office (f) what are the qualifications of the person or persons employed in this office?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes, see reply to Question No. 1,394, page 5372, House oj Commons Debates, July 13, 1964.
2. (a) 645 Elm Court; (b) answered by 1;
(c)	Minister's correspondence, arranging appointments, and other office work; (d) answered by 1; (e) answered by 1; (f) a three-year secretarial course and more than ten years of office and clerical experience.


TOM KENT-SALARY AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. Maclnnis: What has been the total amount of (a) salary (b) allowances (c) travelling and other expenses, since April 23, 1963, which have been paid to or on behalf of Mr. Tom Kent who is associated with the Prime Minister's office?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: (a)	$47,083.32 during the period from his appointment on May 1, 1963 to April 30, 1965
(b)	nil (c) $302.56.


CONTRIBUTION TO ABU SIMBEL PRESERVATION FUND
Mr. Rh6aume: 1.	Has the Government of Canada made any contribution to the Fund of the Preservation of Abu Simbel and, if so, is there any reason why contribution is not recorded in the UNESCO Courrier, December 1964 issue, page 6?
2.	If the government has made no such contribution does it intend to and, if so, when and how much?
3.	If not, is there any reason for not making such a contribution?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Government did not make a direct contribution but paid a sum of $5,350 as a fee for the exhibition of the Tutankha-mon Treasures in Canada in 1964 and 1965, the fee to be used for the safeguarding of the Nubian Monuments.
2. The Government has no further contribution in mind.

3. In the Nubian campaign, the Government made a direct contribution of $35,000 plus administrative costs for excavations in the Nubia and Kom Ombo area of the Nile. It did not consider itself in a position to make a further direct contribution to the Abu Simbel project.


ABU SIMBEL TEMPLE COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
Mr. Rheaume: As some 40 countries have already Issued stamps relating to the preservation of the Abu Simbel Temple, does the Government of Canada intend issuing a similar stamp?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: No. The philatelic programs for 1965, 1966 and 1967 are the heaviest in Canada's history as a result of the contribution the Post Office is making in commemorating the Centennial of Confederation. Numerous outstanding Canadian subjects have been suggested for portrayal on postage stamps, therefore, it is necessary to defer many worthy suggestions with international connotations.


OSCAR WINKEL
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Was Mr. Oscar Winkel once employed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, if so, where and in what capacity?
2.	Was Mr. Oscar Winkel suspended from his employment and, if so, when?
3.	What were the circumstances surrounding the suspension, if it occurred, of Mr. Winkel?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes, Mr. Oscar Winkel was employed at Calgary, Alberta as an Immigration Officer.
2.	Yes, Mr. Winkel was suspended from duty, effective midnight April 13, 1962.
3.	Mr. Winkel was suspended pending an investigation into irregular practices by him in connection with the admission of persons to Canada.


EXPENSE DECLARATIONS OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	What sums were declared, in detail, as expenses of candidates of each of the federal political parties in the last three elections?
2.	What was the percentage of returns received from candidates of each of the political parties in the last three elections?
3.	Are penalties applicable to candidates who do not file returns and, if so (a) are they applied, and (b) in what proportion of cases?
4.	If such penalties are not applied, for what reason?
June 2, 1965


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows:
1.	Subsection (6) of section 63 of the Canada Elections Act reads as follows:
The returning officer shall preserve all such returns and declarations with the bills and vouchers relating thereto and at all reasonable times during six months next after they have been delivered to him shall permit any elector to inspect them and to make extracts therefrom on payment of a fee, of twenty cents; and after the expiration of such six months' period, the documents may be destroyed, or, if after six months and before destruction the candidate or his official agent applies for their return, they shall be returned to the candidate.
Consequently, the information asked for is not now available.
2.	1958: Progressive Conservative, 95.2%; Liberal, 74.4%; Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 76.3%; Social Credit, 68.7%; Independent, 66.7%; Labor-Progressive Party, 72.2%; Others, 25%.
1962:	Progressive	Conservative, 85.9%;
Liberal, 87.8%; New Democratic Party, 81.7%; Social Credit, 67.4%; Independent, 60%; Communist Party of Canada, 83.4%; Others, 33.3%.
1963:	Progressive	Conservative, 79.2%;
Liberal, 85.2%; New Democratic Party, 70.3%; Social Credit, 65.9%; Independent, 87.5%; Communist Party of Canada, 75%; Others, 66.7%.
3.	Penalties applicable to candidates who do not file election expense returns are set out in subsections (7) and (8) of Section 63 of the Canada Elections Act. (a) No information. (b) No information.
4.	No information.


PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF RECEIVING OVER $10,000 SALARY
Mr. Maclnnis: To what persons who are employees or officials in the Prime Minister's office are salaries paid over the amount of $10,000 per year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The following persons employed in the Prime Minister's office are paid salaries over $10,000 per year: Mr. J. Coutts; Mr. H. Doman; Mr. T. Kent; Miss Mary E. Macdonald.


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to carry out minor crib repairs on
Questions
the wharf at Dyer Bay, Ontario, during 1965.


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans an underwater inspection of the harbour facilities at Tobermory during 1965. Until the inspection is completed, it is not known what renovation or repairs, if any, will be required during 1965. No dredging is planned during 1965.


CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATION, KINCARDINE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Kincardine, Bruce County?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Kincardine, Bruce County.


CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATION, ST. EDMUNDS, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of St. Edmunds. Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of St. Edmunds, Bruce County, Ontario.

June 2, 1965
Questions


TENDERS FOR HANGAR REROOFING, CENTRALIA, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1. Were tenders called for re-roofing Hangar 7, RCAF Station, Centralia, Ontario, File-747-C1-1 and if so (a) what are the names and addresses of the tenders, and (b) what was the amount of
each tender? 2. Was the lowest tender accepted and, If not, for	
what reason? Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate	Minister of
National Defence): 1. Yes. (a)	(b)
Malach Roofing & Flooring Ltd. 2610 Pillette Road, Windsor, Ont.	$44,900.
R. S. Trumper Sheet Metal & Roofing Ltd., (formerly: Carmichael Roofing & Insulation Co. Ltd.) 779 Little Simcoe St. London, Ont.	$45,000.
Moxon Contracting Ltd. 58 Crockford Boulevard, Scarborough, Ont.	$45,400.
Semple Gooder Co. Ltd. 1365 Martingrove Road, Rexdale, Ont.	$48,832.
2. Yes.


HARBOUR WORKS, LION'S HEAD, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects are planned for renovation, repair or dredging by the Department of Public Works during 1965, for the harbour facilities at Lion's Head, Ontario?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to grade the approach to the launching ramp and remove loose wavebreak timbers from the structure at Lion's Head, Ontario, during 1965.


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


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


FEDERAL BUILDING, BRIDGEWATER, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1. Is it the intention of the government to build a new federal building in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
[Mr. Lamontagne.l
2.	Will the building be built on the present site, or will a new location be acquired?
3.	What will be the size of any proposed building and what is the estimated cost?
4.	On what dates does the government intend to call public tenders for its construction?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Construction of a new Federal building at Bridgewater is being considered.
2.	A new location.
3.	Approximately 15,300 square feet at an estimated cost of $375,000.
4.	Not yet known.


VESSELS TO RECEIVE SHIP CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
Mr. Dube: What are the names of the following vessels for which agreements have been executed under Ship Construction Assistance Regulations (a) 15 large bulk carriers (b) 5 small bulk carriers and package freighters (c) 8 tankers?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows: (a) Sir Denys Lowson, E. B. Barber; Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, Collingwood, Hull No. 186; Baie St. Paul; Murray Bay; Saguenay; Rimouski; Davie Shipbuilding Limited, Hull No. 650; M. J. Boylen; Tarantau; Frankcliffe Hall; Laiorencecliffe Hall; J. N. McWatters; Cape Breton Miner; Ocean Power.
(b)	Fort William; Cabot; Hamildoc; King-doc; Yankcanuk.
(c)	J. Edouard Simard; Jos. Simard; Irving Ours Polaire; Aime Gaudreau; Hudson Transport; Port Weller Dry Dock Limited, Hull No. 39; Irvingstream; W. Harold Rea.


ALTERATIONS TO MOHAWK INDIAN INSTITUTE, BRANTFORD, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the tenderers, "Tender for the construction by contract of: alterations and additions to Mohawk Institute, phase II, Six Nations Indian agency, Brantford, Ontario, Index No. 1607-H"?
2.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?


Hubert Badanai: 
PENALTIES FOR LACK OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER
Mr. Caouette: What penalties can be imposed on workers who do not have a social insurance number, or who refuse to make application for one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that: Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act or the Regulations made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission with the approval of the Governor in Council, is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


MASTERS OF FISHERIES VESSELS &quot;CUMELLA&quot; AND &quot;MACES BAY&quot;
Mr. Bell: What are the names of the recent masters of the fisheries patrol boats Cumella and Maces Bay, with their seagoing qualifications indicating the minimum master qualifications for each vessel?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Cumella (59 gross tons), Captain H. M. Forsythe. Certificate of Service as Master of a Steamship, not carrying passengers, and not exceeding 150 gross tons. Home Trade-1936 Certificate of Competency, Master, Home Trade Tug-1957.
Maces Bay (61 gross tons)-Captain H. A. Fleet, Certificate of Competency, Master Steamship, Foreign Going-1951.
The present minimum requirement is Master Home Trade Steamship under 350 gross tons. Certificates of service issued before present requirement established are valid for these vessels.


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to remove the decking on the outer 110 feet of the wharf at Colpoys Bay, Ontario and resurface the area with gravel during 1965.
Questions


CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATION, LINDSAY TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Lindsay, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Lindsay, Bruce County, Ontario.


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to reconstruct part of the timber crib at Cape Croker, Ontario, during 1965.


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING TAXING POWERS OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Have any representations been made since January 1, 1964, to the government seeking the removal of the constitutional limitations on taxing power imposed by (a) An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway, Chapter 1, Statutes of Canada, 1881 (b) An Act to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the Province of Manitoba, Chapter 14, Statutes of Canada, 1881 (c) An Act to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, Chapter 42, Statutes of Canada, 1905, and (d) An Act to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Alberta, Chapter 3, Statutes of Canada, 1905?
2.	Who made these representations?
3.	What action has the government taken as a result of these representations?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Yes.
2.	The representations were made on behalf of the governments of the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, by the Premiers of the said Provinces.
3.	This is a question of government policy which is under active consideration and the result of which will be made known in the usual way.

June 2, 1965
Questions
EXPORT OF HORSES FOR SLAUGHTER Motion No. 532-Mr. MacLean (Queens):
1.	What has been the total export of horses to Europe lor each ol the last three years?
2.	Are aged horses being exported to European countries, to be slaughtered for meat?
3.	If such horses are being exported, are they examined by a veterinarian to determine whether or not they are in condition to survive the voyage, and is any report made on their condition on their arrival in Europe?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation which would prohibit the export of live horses for meat, and requiring that such horses be humanely slaughtered in Canada, and the meat shipped abroad?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Canadian Exports of horses to Continental Europe 1962-63-64:
Year Horses for Slaughter Horses N.E.S.
1962	-	-1963	-	21964	330	-2.	The latest export statistics for this year show no exports of horses for slaughter to Europe. There was only one shipment during the previous ten years and that consisted of the 330 head exported last year.3.	All horses before being shipped abroad are examined by a Canada Department of Agriculture veterinarian to ensure that they are in a healthy condition.
A Canada Department of Agriculture veterinarian travelled with the shipment of 330 head that was made to Europe last year, and reported to his Department on the condition of the horses upon arrival.
4.	There is no intention of introducing new legislation at this time to govern the export of live horses for slaughter, but this entire question is being examined in relation to legislation which now exists.
Legislation already exists to ensure that all food animals, including horses, that are slaughtered in plants under federal inspection are slaughtered in a humane manner. This is in the form of the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act and the Humane Slaughter Regulations, which are administered by the Health of Animals Branch of the Canada Department of Agriculture.


S.P.C.A. REPRESENTATIVES AT SEALING OPERATIONS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	During the past sealing season, did the boats sealing on the "Front" carry a representative from the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?
[Mr. Cantin.l
2.	During the past sealing season, did a representative of the C.S.P.C.A. take two seals from the ice and ship them to the Vancouver Zoo?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. No.
2. Yes.


TRADERS FOR MAIL TRANSPORT, WINNIPEG-FORT WILLIAM
Mr. Slogan: 1.	Have tenders been called for a postal transportation contract between Winnipeg and Fort William closing on May 20, 1965 and, if so, what tenders were received and in what amount?
2.	Who was the successful tenderer?


René Tremblay: I.	Offers for the transportation of mail (highway service) between Fort William and Winnipeg, under a temporary arrangement for one year, were receivable until April 28, 1965. Bids received were as follows:
John M. Grant, 661 Government Ave., Winnipeg 15, $57,787 (withdrawn); Thiessen Bus Lines, 301 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10, $59,831 (unsuitable equipment); Neil Penner, P.O. Box 226, Morden, Man., $60,800; Du-Rite Cartage & Transfer, 1382 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, $63,500; Harvey Knopf & Charles Murke, River Hills, $65,801.10; R. Dreger & L. Meisner Sand and Gravel, 521 Marsden St., Winnipeg 15, $66,297.86; Wm. H. Pudas, 144 McKibbin St., Port Arthur, Ont., $68,400;
J.	W. Matiowsky, c/o West Hotel, 786 Main
St., Winnipeg 4, $79,992; V. R. Davis, 612 6th Ave. S., Kenora, Ont., $80,245; Canadian Pacific Transport Co., Winnipeg 2, $82,420; Gardewine & Sons Ltd., 1001 Elgin Ave., Winnipeg 3, $86,664; John Molinski, White-mouth, Man., $89,869.68; Reimer Express Lines Ltd., 1390 Pacific Ave., Winnipeg 3, $91,158.60; Victor Nolet, 33 Machin Ave., Dryden, Ont., $95,900; Harry N. MacBeth, Box 69, R.R. 5, Winnipeg, $96,094.30; Robert J. Syncos, Upsala, Ont., $97,100; Canadian National Railways, Winnipeg 1,	$102,300;
R. A. Groom, R.R. 1, Fort William, Ont., $102,500; Crossroads Transport Ltd., Box 60, Dickens S.O., Winnipeg 23, $102,713.92; Gordon Bruce Henderson, 448 Heather Cresc., Fort William, Ont., $105,000; Soo-Security Motorways, 1070 Arena Road, Winnipeg 21, $105,600; Robert Bencharski, 12 Nipigon Road, Winnipeg 6, $127,750; Ken's Storage Ltd., P.O. Box 670, Kenora, Ont., $131,602.21; Northwest Moving & Storage, Box 564, Kenora, Ont., $138,021.83; Lakehead Freight-ways Ltd., Box 58, Port Arthur, Ont., $142,000.
2. Neil Penner, P.O. Box 226, Morden, Man.
June 2. 1965


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


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


CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATION, LION'S HEAD, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial project grant from the municipality of Lion's Head Village, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Lion's Head Village, Bruce County, Ontario.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Doucett: 1.	What was the amount paid for family allowance in 1964?
2.	What was the total number of recipients of family allowance in 1964?
3.	What was the total number of recipients of family allowance in 1964 from each province?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Family Allowances paid in the fiscal year 1964-65, $545,775,231.
2. and 3. Family Allowances recipients as at March 31, 1965:
Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Yukon and Northwest Territories
Questions


TRI-SERVICE RECRUITING OFFICE, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Mullally: Is it the intention of the government to open a tri-service recruiting office in Charlottetown, PJ3.I. and, if so, when will it be opened and at what location?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: An integrated Triservice recruiting centre has been established in Charlottetown, P.E.I. effective 1 April, 1965. It is located in the Queen Charlotte Armoury, corner of Water Street and Havilland Street.


ALBERMARLE, ONT.-CENTENNIAL PROJECT GRANT
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Al-bermarle, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Albermarle, Bruce County, Ontario.


SECRETARY OF STATE-PARLIAMENTARY DUTIES
Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleion):
What are the names of departments, commissions, boards, Crown corporations and/or any other government agency or agencies for which the Secretary of State answers to Parliament?


Maurice Lamontagne: Department of the Secretary of State; Board of Broadcast Governors; Canada Council; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Canadian Centre for the Performing Arts; Centennial Commission; Chief Electoral Officer; Civil Service Commission; Custodian of Enemy Property; Economic Council of Canada; National Film Board; National Gallery of Canada; National Library; Public Archives; Queen's Printer (Publisher); Representation Commissioner.


VANCOUVER, B.C.-NATIONAL FILM BOARD PRODUCTION UNIT
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to establishing a National Film Board production unit in Vancouver?
68,418
14,191
105,163
82,578
780,305
964,468
133,500
131,449
212,630
247,635
6,212
2,746,549

June 2, 1965
Questions
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secrelary of
Slate): I am informed by the National Film Board that this is a matter which the members of the Board are currently studying.


AMABEL, ONT.-CENTENNIAL PROJECT GRANT
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Amabel, Bruce County, Ontario?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial governments concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were sumitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Amabel, Bruce County, Ontario.


GEORGES LEMAY-ISSUANCE OF PASSPORT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was a passport issued to Joseph Rene Roy otherwise known as Georges Lemay, within the last five years?
2.	If such a passport was issued, who was the guarantor who signed the application and what address did the guarantor give?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	A passport was issued in Ottawa on January 16, 1963, to Mr. Rene Roy, No. 5-507903.
2.	The guarantor's name on the application was given as Dr. G. E. Cloutier and his address was given as 1656 Sherbrooke East, Montreal.
May I add the following facts. The passport issued to Rene Roy was found in the possession of Georges Lemay when he was recently arrested in Florida. The passport is still in the custody of the United States police authorities but it is clear that the photograph originally placed in the passport had been unlawfully removed and a different photograph substituted. The R.C.M.P. have not yet located Mr. Rene Roy. Dr. Cloutier has denied that he signed as guarantor and says that the signature on the application is a forgery. The R.C.M.P. investigation of the passport is continuing.


HEPWORTH, ONT.-CENTENNIAL PROJECT GRANT
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Hep-worth, Bruce County, Ontario?
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of
State): The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Hepworth, Bruce County, Ontario.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Deachman: V/hat has been (a) the federal government capital investments on university campuses located in the province of British Columbia in each year since 1950	(b) the total paid in percapita grants to
universities located in British Columbia in each year since the policy has been in force?
Return tabled.


FRENCH LANGUAGE INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Dube: 1.	How many federal government departments or agencies have a separate French language information service?
2.	When is it anticipated that the Glassco commission recommendations in this regard will be implemented in the case of departments or agencies which do not have them?
Return tabled.


AMATEUR SPORT GRANTS TO NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Armstrong: What was done with the money transmitted to Nova Scotia in 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which countries received aid under Canada's External Aid Program in 1964?
2.	What was the amount of aid which each country receiving such aid, obtained?
3.	How much of this Canadian aid in 1964 consisted of Canadian goods exported to these developing countries?
4.	Which Canadian firms benefited from contracts received from the External Aid Office?
5.	Which provinces in Canada were granted these External Aid contracts?
Return tabled.
June 2, 1965


RESEARCH ON AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Howe (Wellington-: Huron):
1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare conducting a program of research on air pollution and, if so, what have been the findings of this program as to its cause in connection with (a) the motor car, the truck and the bus (b) industrial and commercial enterprise (c) nuclear fallout?
2.	Have any conclusions been arrived at as to methods of control?
3.	How much has this program cost to date?
4.	How much of the allocation set aside for research into cigarette smoking has been spent to date?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Notices of motions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two weeks ago I brought to the attention of the Government the fact that many written questions on the order paper have been left unanswered for long periods of time. There has been some slight improvement but not sufficient. I think it should be brought to the attention of the Government that even considering the answers given today, there are approximately 18 questions that have been on the Order Paper for seven weeks or more; there are approximately five that have been there for six weeks or more and, over 60 questions on the Order Paper have been there for four weeks or more. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to prevail upon his Ministers to try to bring about more rapid answers to many of these questions so we may not resort to prolonging the oral question period in this House.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Since this matter has been raised, I would invite the hon. Member to look at those questions that have been on the Order Paper for a considerable period of time, as to the form of drafting. Some of them may be in order, but a good many of them are not. A good many of them necessitate inquiries to be made in every department of Government when it is obvious that if the questioner had given any thought to the matter, he could have worded his question in a way that would have necessitated inquiries in only one department.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I raised a question of privilege relating to some of these questions.
Motions for Papers
I pointed out that question No. 1 had been on the Order Paper since March 11 of the last session. Question No. 4 has been on the Order Paper since March 18. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that the information could not have been provided by the Minister of Justice a long time ago. While question No. 4 requires detailed information, it is not of the type that should require three months to provide the information to the House.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I have little to add to what has been said by the hon. Member for Cumberland. I point out that the most serious denial of information to this House relates to question No. 1, which in no way comes within the ambit of the exceptions that were raised a moment ago by the President of the Privy Council. The first part of that question reads as follows:
Was the Minister of Justice or any of his officials informed by the police authorities organizing the surprise raid on possible hideouts of one Lucien Rivard of the intention of the police authorities to have the alleged surprise raid filmed for use by the C.B.C.?
Now, that question deals with a man who has disappeared. No one wants to get some information that would undermine security. Certainly, there are only two departments there, and they should have that information. Then, the next question is:
Does the R.C.M. Police when carrying out surprise raids to apprehend criminals make any arrangement with news media to publicize their efforts regarding such operations?
This should be a simple question to answer and does not cover two departments. The next
question was:
Has the Minister of Justice or any of his officials lodged any complaint with the police authorities regarding the use of free-lance cameramen in filming such raids in view of the complications that could well result with the setting up of the filming equipment-
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This question has been there since April
5.	No amount of equivocation or excuse can be advanced to answer the failure of the Government to give a reply to it. It can only be deliberate and intentional.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motions 34, 35 and 36 are acceptable to the Government. Motion 33 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning interdepartmental materials. I ask that notice of motion

June 2, 1985
Motions for Papers
No. 38 be now called, and that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Marcoux:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports submitted to the Department of Justice in connection with the case of Leopold Dion and the National Parole Board.
Motion agreed to, subject to expressed reservation.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the Minister of Finance since September 1, 1964, respecting the desirability of an increase of University per capita grants and criticizing the government for not dealing with the emergency financial situation in university education.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Ricard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any letter or correspondence exchanged between Mr. Maurice Chouinard, Mayor of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli and the Departments of Public Works and Post Office concerning offers of land, construction applications and an offer of rented premises for a post office in the Village of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36
Mr. Mariineau:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Ordinance No. 4344 of the Air Transport Board, relating to the application filed by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Mariineau:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the draft framework agreement submitted by the Department of External Affairs to Mr. Bas-devant, Director of Cultural Affairs for France, in respect of cultural exchanges between the provinces and foreign countries.
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend will not persist in putting this motion. It has to do with the production of a draft agreement which is under consideration between Canada and another country. It has been well established, by procedures [Mr. Stewart.l
and decisions of this House, that while negotiations are under way it is neither desirable nor in conformity with our practice to produce a document such as this in these circumstances.
I would therefore ask my hon. friend, with confidence in his great knowledge of the rules of the House, to be good enough to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Paul Raymond Martineau: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister was asked the other day if the publication that appeared in some of the press corresponded substantially to the draft agreement, and I was unable to get a reply from him. In view of this I think it is only fair that the House should get the actual text. I know it is a draft and I am requesting it as a draft, and as a draft it should be studied by Members of the House.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
apparently I was in error in assuming that my dear and honourable friend had a profound knowledge of the rules. In view of his benevolent persistence I would ask that this matter be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is in a position to make a report to the House regarding the situation in South Viet Nam, particularly with reference to what appears to be an extension of the hostilities in that area, and the general fear that is being expressed, not only in the press of our country but in other countries as well, as to the danger of escalation consequent on what has taken place there?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman was kind enough a few moments ago to give me notice of his intention to address this question to me. I suspect that the question is possibly influenced by the article that appeared in the People's Daily, in the Chinese People's Republic, signed by "Observer".
This article states that China has the right to support North Viet Nam; that North Viet Nam has, and always has had the right to
June 2, 1965

support the Viet Cong in the south, and that North Viet Nam is free to cease to be restricted by the military demarcation line, the 17th parallel, which was provided for in the 1954 Geneva agreement.
I would express doubt, in view of the contentions made in the past six weeks by the North Vietnamese, that they would be prepared to publicly support such a position. The statement referred is obviously an attempt to escalate alarm and create dissension, but the right hon. gentleman is right in putting this question because, in view of the importance of the situation, every particular fact that comes to our notice at this time must be taken into consideration.
Yesterday I asked our High Commissioner in London to call on the Foreign Secretary to discuss a number of matters, and I see there has been public mention that among the matters discussed was the Cambodian question. That is true, but there were other matters discussed. I may say that we ourselves are having discussions elsewhere. Beyond that it is not possible for me to go.


John George Diefenbaker: Does there seem to be any probability that a conference on Cambodia might be called and convened to the end that this question of Viet Nam might conveniently be one of the subjects which could be discussed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid that, at the moment, the news regarding such a conference is not hopeful.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the Canadian government signed or is it about to sign an agreement enabling the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. W. A. C. Bennett, to reach agreements with Japan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, is this question meant for me? If such is the case, I shall have to take it as notice because I am not aware of this matter at present.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question regarding a report which came over the C.B.C. last night to the effect that the Minister of National Defence in Paris had said that Canada was offering additional forces for service in NATO. Since the Minister undoubtedly did this with the full knowledge and consent of the Government I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us the purpose of these additional forces. Will they be additional to the force now in West Germany? Will they serve in that area, or are they for some other peace keeping function to be carried on by NATO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of National Defence will be in the House tomorrow and no doubt he will wish to make a report on the meeting. Meanwhile, I have before me the text of the statement he made-this was the source of the press report to which the hon. Member referred. The Minister was dealing with a suggestion made by another NATO delegate that mobile forces should be organized on an urgent and permanent basis, and our Minister of National Defence commented on this statement as follows:
Canada shares this view. We have already committed a battalion group to allied command (Europe) mobile force. Our national plans are not unmindful of NATO requirements. They envisage the development of a much greater strategic mobile capability.
That is, our national plans. He went on:
We would be willing to consider to what extent in co-operation with other NATO countries we might provide further assistance in this important area.
That is, the area of mobile forces. What the Minister said was that we would be willing to consider, in co-operation with other NATO members, the extent to which mobile military assistance could be increased.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the Prime Minister any information as to what is being proposed by Defence Secretary McNamara with reference to diffusing control among the NATO powers with respect to nuclear arms? Will this mean more Angers on the trigger or will the Anal decision still rest with the United States?

June 2. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: I think the hon. Member will agree, upon reflection, that the Minister should himself comment on this. What Mr. McNamara suggested was the setting up of a committee to discuss this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow the Minister to report on the details of what went on. He will be here tomorrow.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made by our ambassador at the United Nations, Mr. Paul Tremblay, that there is no immediate settlement in sight of the financial crisis now threatening the United Nations, and in view of the fact that the Minister has had conversations in recent days with Mr. Adlai Stevenson and others, does he have any information which might cast light on this problem, a crucial one as far as the United Nations is concerned?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I have not seen the statement made by the ambassador. I suspect he was referring to the discussions which are now under way at the United Nations in the committee of 33. It is a fact that, while some proposals have been made, no agreement has yet been reached between the Soviet Union, for instance, and other countries such as Canada with regard to indebtedness. Nor has there been any agreement yet with regard to the argument put forward by the Soviet Union that only the Security Council can deal with matters having to do with peace keeping. But the negotiations will go on and Canada will do all it can to try and bring about some agreement, we hope before September when the next Assembly must meet.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I would ask it in two parts. First, is Mr. Harold Doman, one of his special assistants, still employed in his office? My second question is: In a criminal 
trial being conducted in British Columbia the accused Mr. Williamson has, by statement, stated that he is a friend of Mr. Dornan, and was a friend during the time they were negotiating for Harry Stonehill's entrance to Canada, and that it was Mr. Doman who had requested that the Bennett letter be written. Was the Prime Minister aware of this information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, Mr. Dornan is a member of my staff. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I have no comment to make on Mr. Williamson's statement about his friendship.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Mr. Dornan has allegedly sworn that remarks made by Raymond Denis while he was employed as the executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were totally improper and embarrassing to the Government. Was the Prime Minister made aware of this information by Mr. Dornan and, if so, why did he not ask for Denis' resignation prior to Denis quitting his employment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on my hon. friend's interpretation of an observation alleged to have been made. I have said before and I am glad to repeat that Mr. Dornan has acted in this matter with propriety.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to put to the Minister of Labour. I understand that some 800 men employed by the Canadian National Railways in Toronto have quit work today over an agreement concerning the demerit system, and that this stoppage is spreading. I also understand that the grain handlers in Vancouver and Westminster are due to quit work this afternoon over their dispute with the managers of the grain elevators. Can the Minister bring us up to date on these two situations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the situation in Vancouver and Westminster I understand notice has been given that the Alberta Pool elevators will be struck at 12 noon today. At
June 2, 1S65

the same time I want to report that the negotiation officer on the west coast was still conducting discussions this morning with the parties and I am awaiting a further report from him at any moment as to the result of these discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether his Department handled the conciliation proceedings? My understanding is that a conciliation board made a report and that the union in question accepted the majority report. It would be extremely helpful to Members in understanding this problem if we could have a copy of the majority and the minority reports of the conciliation board of his Department with reference to this particular dispute. Could they be made available?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make available to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members copies of these conciliation board reports.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question about the R.C.M.P. and certain news reports which first appeared in the Toronto Telegram but have been widely printed in other places concerning sinister forces at work. I think the Minister will remember that one of the alleged quotations from the Commissioner was that the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Chevrier, did not even know where the office of the R.C.M.P. was. I want to ask the Minister whether he has had any conversation with the Commissioner and whether he plans any kind of statement as a result of these reports, which would seem to indicate that all is not very well with the R.C.M.P.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it would of course be improper for me to comment on a newspaper article. As to whether or not I have discussed the matter with the Commissioner: Yes, I have.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to take this matter up at ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



TARIFF CONCESSIONS ON MOTORCAR COMPONENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. It has to do with the importation of materials and component parts for the manufacture of car parts in Canada. Is the Minister or the Department contemplating any changes in the tariff on these items coming into Canada so that Canadian car parts manufacturers will be able to compete with United States car part manufacturers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I think I pointed out to the House that components brought into Canada for further processing in Canada into original equipment parts or original equipment cars could and would enter Canada duty free if imported by or on behalf of a qualified motorcar manufacturer.



MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF U.S. AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the Minister any information to give this House on a reported dinner meeting in Detroit tonight with officials representing United States automobile companies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am host this evening and I hope we will have a very enjoyable time and that the results will be constructive.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister whether, as host, Canadian automobile companies will be represented on this auspicious occasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be entertaining officials both of the United States automobile companies and the Canadian automobile companies.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the entertainment also include some tax concessions to remove injustices which it is believed exist today in the automobile production field?

June 2, 198S
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I know the right hon. gentleman will be pleased to know that the entertainment will include some kinds that he does not ordinarily enjoy. I would also tell him that on this occasion we will be discussing the great opportunities that exist for business enterprises to participate in the celebration of Canada's birthday at Expo '67.



DUMPING DUTIES ON CHINESE TEXTILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue).- Mr. Speaker, on May 27 the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle inquired of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, regarding the application of dumping duties on Chinese textiles in the last six weeks. In reply thereto my colleague indicated that he would refer this matter to me.
In order to determine whether special duty has been assessed against recent importations of textiles from Mainland China, various probable ports of entry were contacted. They all reported no such assessments. I assume, therefore, that the hon. Member's request relates to directives which I have issued as Minister of National Revenue under the authority of Section 38 of the Customs Act. These directives, issued on March 30 and April 14, indicate that certain textile products imported from Mainland China are to be appraised on the basis of the values of comparable Japanese goods. The foregoing procedure is in accordance with Clause II of Memorandum I of the long term wheat agreement, signed August 31, 1963.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I noticed that the Minister stated that the goods were to be appraised on the basis of comparable Japanese goods. I should like the Minister to inquire most carefully once again of his officials to see whether there are any affidavits on record which indicate that these goods are not comparable with their appraised value.
Second, I wish the Minister would consider the possibility of appraising or valuing goods from Mainland China on the basis of Hong Kong goods.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to make inquiries concerning the affidavits. However, I should like to inform the hon. Member that in making our appraisals we have endeavoured to give recognition to the

variations in quality of the particular products.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. This question relates to one which was posed during the closing days of last session in the Minister's absence, and at that time the suggestion was made that the question would be referred to the Minister who would in due course make a report.
In view of the apparently justifiable complaints concerning excessive prices being charged for gasoline in many parts of Canada, particularly in northern Manitoba, is the Government undertaking a comprehensive review under the Combines Investigation Act regarding these complaints about price fixing by major oil companies?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to receiving, dealing with and making an announcement in this House about the T.B.A. report, I have received further submissions from both gasoline retailers and oil companies, which are all presently under consideration by myself and the Director.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and at the same time draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance.
I	know the Minister is anxious to help the farmers of this country, but has he ever asked the Minister of Finance to try to remove the
II	per cent sales tax on farm machinery, which is becoming unbearable to the farmers of Canada?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will let the Minister of Finance answer his own questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: He is quite capable of doing so.


An hon. Member:: That is a good idea.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 2, 1965


Mr. Smallwood:: Take him out behind the barn.


Harry William Hays: The Minister of Finance is capable of answering his own questions, and I do not think we have ever had a more capable Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harry William Hays: The economy certainly backs up that statement.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for his kind remarks in his reply to the hon. Member for Huron. I wish to assure that hon. Member that the Minister of Agriculture, as well as all the other Members of this Government, has the interest of the farmers at heart.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It may be of interest to my hon. friends to know that most items of farm machinery are not subject to the very heavy tax the hon. Member referred to.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister of Finance why it is that the price of farm machinery is going up, up and up?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I would be allowed to answer a question of that kind on orders of the day. I am afraid the right hon. gentleman might suggest that my answer was too prolonged.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DAIRY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I would be allowed to answer questions asked yesterday by the hon. Members for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) concerning the Government's new dairy program. In relation to these questions and their implications I have checked the correspondence which has reached my Department, and it is apparent that some farmers are still not fully aware just how the new policy affects them, and I should like to clear up some of the apparent misunderstanding.
As I said here on March 26 when announcing the new policy for the-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is asking us to revert to motions we will certainly consent, but he cannot weasel in this kind of an announcement on orders of the day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Member asks a question dealing with Government policy and the question is allowed, surely the Minister ought to be allowed to reply.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the right hon. gentleman, may I remind him that we have just listened to him make a speech about questions not being answered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, questions of this kind should be answered at the right time, and a statement such as the Minister is attempting to make by way of an alibi or evasion in respect of something which began in March, should be made on the order for motions. If the Minister is asking us to revert to motions, and we consent, then he will have the opportunity of answering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under our procedure the time to give long answers of this kind is, of course, on motions. Immediately after this question period, which will be completed at 3.25, if the House gives consent to the Minister he will then have the opportunity to make his statement. This matter is of great interest.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope in view of what you have just said that when questions are asked in relation to Government policy, they will either be ruled out of order or the Minister will be allowed to give an answer.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, these questions were asked by two hon. Members of the party of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and if they would like an answer I will be glad to give it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is not the way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has suggested that at 3.25 following the question period the House might give its consent to the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement. I understood that hon. Members agreed to that suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 2, 1965
Inquiries oj the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am simply stating that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Official Opposition is rising on a point of order, I take it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking whether we are now reverting to motions. We are perfectly willing to consent to such a request, and to allow the necessary extension, but we are not going to allow statements to be made before this House in this way in answer to questions which should have been answered immediately.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for hon. Members, including the Leader of the Official Opposition, to know whether the answer the Minister of Agriculture intends to make is an answer or a statement, until it has been heard. Questions were asked by hon. Members on the Opposition side, and I think the Minister is entitled to give an answer.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker has already made a ruling.


George James McIlraith: All the Minister of Agriculture is trying to do is answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Respect the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members will realize that this is a short question period, and that it is becoming shorter by the instant.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-FRUIT CROP LOSSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to B.C. fruit losses this year. Has the Government of British Columbia yet requested help from this Government in connection with the disastrous fruit crop losses of this year?


Harry William Hays: I would like to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TENURE OF OFFICE OF SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my protocol is correct. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will arrange to have copies made and distributed of the report on the tenure of office
[Mr. Speaker.)
of the Speaker which was prepared by Professor Denis Smith? Those of us who served on the Committee on Procedure have had the benefit of reading this report, but before the debate commences on Government Item No. 15, I think it would be well if all hon. Members had a copy to study.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course this report is not in the possession of the Government and, as I am sure my hon. friend knows, it is not the Government's responsibility to circulate it. However, I think it would be most desirable if Mr. Speaker, who was Chairman of the Committee, would agree that this report be circulated to all Members of the Committee and of the House, so they may have the advantage of studying it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I may add a postscript. The report in question was received by the Chair in English, of course, as it was written by Professor Smith. It was sent several days ago to the translators and is now in process of being translated. I want to table the report in both English and French, and if it is desirable that hon. Members have copies of it, it can be circulated tomorrow.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister inquire and report to the House as to whether Mr. Hugh Pickett, recently appointed to the Centennial Commission, has severed his relationship with an agency known as "Famous Artists", in order that there will be no conflict of interest?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be very glad to make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question occasioned by his announcement yesterday that he has achieved a compromise between Air Canada and C.P.A. I wonder whether the Minister can take the same initiative in developing a
June 2, 1965

similar agreement with regard to rail passenger service between C.N.R. and C.P.R., in view of the announced and tabled pessimism of the C.P.R. President about the passenger future and his company's operation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: At first blush, Mr. Speaker, I see no analogy. But I will consider all the hidden meanings in the hon. gentleman's question.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in regard to his aviation policy announcement of yesterday. In it he stated that the Government has undertaken to regard Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines as its chosen instrument in the areas of international operations allocated to each. My question is, now that Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada are jointly in the areas of international operations, will the Minister ask the President of Canadian Pacific Airlines to appear before the committee on Railways, Air Lines and Shipping?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I question, since I have never been a member of that committee, whether I would have any function in the matter. But when the committee has been set up-and I hope it will be later today, after orders 14 and 15 have been adopted by the House-I am sure the Chairman would be glad to entertain a motion to that effect; and it would depend on how the committee felt about it. Of course, I do not think we would want to have compulsory attendance, but I have a slight suspicion that the President of C.P.A. might rather like to come.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What a humbug.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The time allocated to questions has now expired. We started at five minutes to three o'clock, and it is now 3.25.
Royal Assent


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I very seldom ask a question, and I have given notice of this one.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent to the hon. Member for Grey North asking his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Owing to the ever increasing death toll on our highways, would the Prime Minister consider introducing legislation making it compulsory for automobiles being sold in Canada to be equipped with all safety devices currently proven practical and efficient?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a very important question, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should be on the order paper so it can be studied.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 2nd June, 1965
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor-General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 2nd June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant.
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no request before the Chair; therefore I have called orders of the day.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 1, consideration of the motion (as amended on May 27) of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brewin, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Aiken:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business:
1838	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House, and	.
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders;
1.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, undertaken by Standing Committees and that not morethan 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or alditional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(to) That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c) That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows;
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee
reports that the	committee	has	been	unable toreach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will	move that	an	order	be made
allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion	of which a Minister	has givennotice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on	the motion	has	been	previously
concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes
[Mr. Speaker.!
DEBATES	June 2>
1955
before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment last night I was bringing to the attention of the House the fact that the very way this House is constituted indicates, in practice as we know it, that there is one body of people sitting on Your Honour's right-hand side, another body of people sitting on your left-hand side, and the aisle is what divides us with regard to our positions in this House. There is one leader on your right-hand side, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that the people sitting on that side of the chamber and behind that leader are there for one purpose, although they may not always agree in precisely the same way.
I also suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that there is a body of men sitting on your left-hand side who also, in accordance with tradition, sit here under a leader. Perhaps time has changed the composition of
June 2, 1965	COMMONS
people in this House, but it has not altered the purpose of the people sitting on the left-hand side of Your Honour. Therefore the aisle, or the division, remains exactly the same and although some time has passed and some of the tradition has changed, it is my belief that there is but one leader on each side of that aisle. Indeed, I believe that part of our present problem with parliament, as I mentioned last evening and on previous occasions, is not the way our function is being transmitted to the public at the moment but because of the proliferation of the accepted term "parties" in the House.
Occasionally we see an opinion brought forth that verifies the fact that some of the people in the House like to see this division.
I believe that Members and supporters of the Government revel in the division that sometimes occurs in that portion of the chamber to the left-hand side of Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it may be desirable, although I do not think they are particularly enjoying it now, that such division does occur. I noted a specific instance a few days ago, but because of the time and the day I will not mention the details. However, I noticed that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) when making reference to people and the order in which they spoke in the House first mentioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), second the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), third-and I dare to skip over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) although his position also appears-he mentioned the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), indicating to me that the Minister of Labour knows full well the difference of the position of people in this House and exactly the way it should stand.
However, Mr. Speaker, this does not occur in the way the proposition was put to us in the amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I suggest to Your Honour that because of this fact the subamendment moved by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) is indeed the correct course that should be followed. The alternative that we now have offered by the Government is not sufficient. It is a very weak thing so far as the rights of Members are concerned; it is a very powerful thing so far as the Government is concerned.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I could not accept in any way the alternative
DEBATES	1899
House of Commons Procedures being offered by the Government through the President of the Privy Council. I suggest to you that before this amendment was put into effect the Government would have to institute closure, and then what would the result be? We would have closure by closure. I think we have had enough of this in the last few months. I believe that the terms of the amendments to the rules proposed by the Government are dictatorial and cannot be accepted by this House in their present form.
I was interested some evenings ago in listening to the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). At that time he was speaking to a point of order when we were discussing the possibility of a permanent Speaker. All of us in the House know that the hon. Member for Port Arthur is a paragon of the Press Gallery. We know he has certain powers of interpretation of House proceedings that perhaps the rest of us do not possess. I suggest that he, too, was bringing forward the idea that he could not agree with the proposition for a permanent Speaker under the circumstances because it was extraneous to the proposition before the House at that time. He suggested that the rules as presented could be effective whether or not there was a permanent Speaker.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that there are no safeguards for the Members of this House if we did not have a permanent Speaker who would not take into consideration partisan views. How could we expect any democratic dispensation of our democratic rights in this Chamber? I think that the hon. Member for Port Arthur was completely wrong in stating his views in that way.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. Member will want to be fair. I was speaking to a point of order, and it was my understanding, during the discussion of the point of order and the argument that was raised, that there was an indication given that the particular amendment proposed was out of order for the various reasons put forward. It would seem to me that the hon. Member and his associates, or anyone else in the House who wants to raise the question of a permanent Speaker, are in a sense going against the decision of the Chair in doing so. I should like to have a ruling given, Mr. Speaker, as to how far we can go in this debate on the whole question of a permanent Speaker. This is the point of order I am raising, that the discus-
June 2, 1935

House of Commons Procedures sion of a permanent Speakership is extraneous to this debate. I should like a ruling from you on that.


Mr. Olson:: 1 should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think, too, that some of the remarks made in the House during the past few days respecting a permanent Speaker, and particularly the introduction of personalities into the debate, are highly embarrassing to those personalities. I think we have reached a stage where we should have a ruling on this matter and the debate confined to the terms of the resolution before us.


Mr. Churchill:: Before you make your ruling on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you to look at the introductory speech on the rules made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself. As found on pages 1482 and 1483 of Hansard, the Prime Minister himself raised the problem of a continuing Speaker and spent at least five minutes dealing with that particular problem. The Prime Minister having opened the subject, it is therefore competent to other Members to deal with it in participating in the debate.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I may proceed, Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like some kind of ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I was
wondering if the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce had any comments to make on the point of order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: With regard to the point of order, I may say that the views I quoted as expressed by the hon. Member for Port Arthur are relevant because they are relevant to the measure we have before us at this time. I am talking about the safeguards that we must consider for every Member of the House. I did not quote him to go into the point of order he raised the previous evening; I quoted him with regard to what I consider is essential to the measure before us.


Mr. Baldwin:: Without going into the question of using names or anything of that kind, I should like to say that there was an amendment to proposed Standing Order 15A moved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) which seemed welcome in that it had the effect of entrusting to the discretion of Mr. Speaker the right to fix the number of days under certain circumstances where amendments are introduced. I think, therefore, this imports into this debate at least the opportunity to say that in that context, dealing only with this particular resolution, it is highly desirable that there should be that security of tenure and independence of the Speaker which might not exist at this time. I submit that the introduction of that amendment by the Minister of Labour does entitle hon. Members participating in this debate to take that into consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should like to suggest to the House that those who have followed the debate carefully in the last number of days will realize that the question of a permanent Speaker has been included in many of the speeches made. While I think any fair comment on this subject should be accepted by the Chair, I hope we will be able to move along as quickly as possible on the resolution before us.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to some of the comments made concerning personalities entering into the debate, I suggest to you those references were made by people who are now endeavouring to stop me from raising an argument concerning the safeguards we think we need with regard to the rules of this House. It is not my intention to bring personalities into the debate. I hope others will leave the matter there as well.
I should like now to return to the general debate and the point I was discussing with regard to the position of the two sides of the House. I believe we all accept the fact that the people sitting on this side of the House form what we believe is the alternative to the Government. Therefore we must take a position which will put us on the other side of the House. We cannot be in total agreement. We must seek out those things that are weak, and goodness knows we have had an easy time of it of late in so far as Government legislation is concerned. I recognize it is not important what the division is on this side of the House.
It is a peculiar thing, however, that things have been different in the past. Some of my own colleagues will differ from time to time in the way they present their arguments and indeed in some of their philosophical thinking on some measures. If I look back I can recall well when there was more unanimity on this side of the House. This Government does not have to worry about being defeated because if one party does not support them another party does. I remember one occasion when the then opposition voted in support of a

June 2, 1965	COMMONS
Social Credit monetary reform policy, but I do not see the Liberal party implementing it now that it holds office. This indicates to me that when you are one side of the centre aisle you take a different position from what you did when sitting on the other side. Maybe the people enjoying the other side do not look at it that way but I do.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) expressed a hope that a certain committee could be organized this afternoon. We have proposed that we divide the measure before us so that committees can be organized. We are prepared to do this, and a proposal in very sincere and substantive terms has been made to the Government. The Minister must know we are prepared to cooperate in the setting up of these committees and in that regard the measure before us does not present any problem at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not paying as close attention as I should have and I would ask him to repeat that last proposition which he seemed to address to me. I want to be sure I understand it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I said to the Minister that we are sincere and are ready to make a proposal to divide the measure before us so that the committees can be set up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, is the hon. Member not aware that the motion now before us has nothing to do with the setting up of committees, which comes under order No. 15?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister who raised the matter earlier this afternoon, but I am telling him how co-operative we are prepared to be today.


An hon. Member:: That is not relevant.


Eric Alfred Winkler: When the Minister starts to talk about relevancy, will he tell me what relevancy there is to this whole measure? It is stated that the term "allocation of time'' wherever used may include allocation of time to any item of business or any part thereof and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches. Goodness me, we might have an allocation of from five to 20 minutes. I do not know how small the time limit might be.
Taking into account the original resolution and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I must come out strongly in favour of the subamendment moved by my friend and colleague
DEBATES	1901
House of Commons Procedures from Parry Sound-Muskoka. Unless the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) can come up with something more democratic, something more fair to the Members of the House, I am afraid we will be wasting a little more of his time until he becomes a little more co-operative.
I am not favourably inclined to the imposition of allocation of time on all of us. I hope I have made it clear, before proceeding with my argument, that I believe the subamendment proposed by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka should be accepted by the Government. It imports exactly the same view as is expressed in a motion of mine on the order paper.
If the resolution carries, I believe some provision must also be made in regard to private Members' bills and private Members' business. If the Government is going to enforce allocation of time orders to promote efficiency, as it says, surely the same principle might apply to private Members' hour. Many good measures are introduced by private Members and I believe they should have some control over allocation of time for measures they place before the House. In Britain the rule in this regard says that after a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may move such a motion, whereas in our House the rule reads that immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, or of Supply, or of Ways and Means, any Minister of the Crown, standing in his place, may move, etc.


Mr. Knowles:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Would he not read the whole of that rule from the British book before he compares the two? Does the British one not refer to the motion that the question be now put? Cannot that be moved in either House by any Member?


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is right, but it is application of closure. I am referring to a private Member's bill and the private Member's right to hope for a vote or decision on the measure he introduces and on which he has worked so hard for the benefit of the country. This right is equally as important to the backbenchers of the House as is the resolution before us to the Government.
I hope I have indicated to the Government and the House that I am in a mood to cooperate. I think the Government is being too dictatorial in the way it is presenting this measure to us. I believe the subamendment should be accepted, and rather than accept-
June 2, 1965

House of Commons Procedures ing anything like the resolution introduced by the Government maybe the status quo should be maintained.


Mr. R. W. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will have a self-imposed time allocation of not more than 15 minutes and perhaps less. I want to deal with one particular aspect of the debate.
There seems to be a recurring theme in the speeches of members of the Conservative and Liberal parties about the good old days when there were two parties in the House, that the House was designed for two parties and that it would be wonderful if this were the way it could operate. It has been a very long time since that has been the case in Canada. In fact the last election which returned two parties to this House was that of 1917, and possibly it was only one and a half parties at that time because half of the Liberal party was in the Union Government of the day.
I think we should be reminded periodically that following 1917 there was the election of 1921 which returned 117 Liberals, 59 Conservatives, 64 Progressives, 3 Labour and 1 Independent. The 1925 election returned 101 Liberals, 116 Conservatives, 24 Progressives, 2 Labour and 2 Independents.
In 1926 we had large third and fourth groups, that election having returned 116 Liberals, 91 Conservatives, 11 United Farmers of Alberta, 13 Progressives, 9 Liberal-Progressives, 3 Labour and 2 Independents. In 1930 there were 137 Conservatives, 88 Liberals, 10 United Farmers, 2 Progressives, 3 Liberal-Progressives, 2 Labour, 1 Independent Labour and 2 Independents. In 1935 there were 171 Liberals and 39 Conservatives.
Indeed, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), I would point out that in the Parliaments of 1935 and 1940 there were only 39 Conservative Members. The hon. Member talked about setting a high limit on what should be considered a party. I point out that his party shrunk to 39 on two occasions and to 41 on another. It could happen again next year. In any event in 1935 the figures were 171 Liberals, 39 Conservatives, 17 Social Credit, 7 C.C.F., 5 Independent Liberals, 2 Liberal-Progressives, 1 Independent Conservative, 1 Reconstruction, 1 Independent and 1 U.F.O. In the Parliament of 1940 there were 184 Liberals, 39 Conservatives, 10 Social Credit representatives, 8 members of the C.C.F. party and a number of others called Liberal Progressives, Independent Liberals, Independent Conservatives, Independent, and so on.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Throughout the years ever since the election of 1921 there have been third or fourth parties or a large number of independent members. So it is a long time since we have had a straight two-party system in Canada and I suggest the situation will not change in a hurry.
Some Members have put forward the view that changes in the rules would encourage the multiplication of parties. That is nonsense. It has nothing to do with the rules of this House but concerns rather dissatisfaction with the policies followed by existing parties. The fact that the Social Credit party elected a great many Members to this House from Quebec in 1962 and 1963 had nothing whatever to do with rules of the House of Commons. Electors will vote for the candidates who appeal to them regardless of what our rules are here.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) referred to the question of the definition of parties. We have made some progress in this direction during the last two years in this House, particularly in 1963. The hon. lady mentioned the practice in the National Assembly of France. I am partial to this idea though I do not think we can realize it quickly in Canada. Nevertheless it needs further exploration and study. It is useless to carry on the pretence that political parties do not exist, as is done in many of our rules and, indeed, in the Elections Act itself. Parties do exist. Most of us would not be here were it not for the support of the political parties of which we are Members. People would not vote for us as independents. The role played by the parties in elections and in the operation of Parliament should receive further recognition. I realize this presents difficulties but we have made a beginning by recognizing the existence of more than two parties.
For a long time in Canada, indeed, for nearly 45 years, there have been more than two parties in the House of Commons. Taking into account the fact that parties have been recognized by the rules of the House since 1963, I believe that many of the arguments put forward during this debate by representatives of the Official Opposition particularly fall to the ground. We should recognize now that there is every possibility that as a result of any future election there will be other parties represented in this House beside the Official Opposition.


An hon. Member:: God forbid.
June 2, 1965


Robert William Prittie: Again, someone says "The Lord forbid". Perhaps after the election there will be as many as there are at present in-


An hon. Member:: British Columbia?


Robert William Prittie: Yes, in some parts of Canada there are third and fourth parties. I think in this connection most of us find quite acceptable the type of resolution which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) Indicated last night he would be prepared to present concerning the allocation of time. I believe it is a good idea that this should not work rigidly but be determined with respect to each debate at the time the debate is being considered by the Business Committee.
Having said that, I agree with those who have taken objection to the constant discussion in the House of the possibility of appointing a permanent or continuing Speaker. I think we have had ample discussion on this point now. This was not part of the motion presented to us by the Government for consideration, though it is an important question. I think the House might well consider striking a special committee composed of Members of the type who made up the committee on the rules under Mr. Speaker to consider this question. I do not think we can accomplish very much by discussing it now, particularly if we bring personalities into the subject.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, all of us realize that some changes in the rules and procedures of the House are necessary from time to time in order to meet changing conditions. However, it is a fallacy to think that rule changes alone will make Parliament into a more efficient and smoother operating institution. What in my opinion is much more important is the attitude taken by Members of Parliament and by all parties in the House, their sense of responsibility or otherwise, their willingness to observe the rules or to flout them.
These are essentially the things which make this institution run reasonably well or prevent it from doing so. I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) looking up with interest at this point. He knows from his personal experience that this is the case. The system under which we have been operating worked much better during the first ten years after the war than it has during the past ten years. I think there is no doubt about that. This is in spite of the fact that particularly in the first part of this 20 year period a considerable number of rule changes were put into effect. All those changes were designed to save the time of the House to some extent. For exam-
House of Commons Procedures pie, there was the limitation placed on the length of the debate on the Address and on the Budget debate. Despite those measures the length of our sessions has not been shortened.
Some will say this is because there was less business to be done in Parliament during the decade that followed the war than there is at the present time. I submit this is not really the case. I believe there was more business before the House then, more measures of various kinds to be considered in the immediate post-war sessions than has ever been the case in any similar period of time since then. Nevertheless, we got through all our business more expeditiously than in recent years.
Again, some will say that the difficulties of the past few years have been due primarily to the multiplicity of parties in the House. This factor has undoubtedly contributed to the length of time taken on various matters. More time has been taken by speakers commenting on statements made by Ministers on the orders of the day, as well as during the question period and in the various debates. I think the multiplicity of parties is unquestionably one of the reasons rule changes have been discussed as much as they have been discussed; it is one of the reasons most of us are looking toward some changes in the rules at the present time. However, once again I do not believe it is the basic reason for our present difficulties.
I would point out that in 1945 there were actually more parties in the House than there are at the present time. A Liberal Government was in power with a bare majority. In opposition were the Conservative party, the C.C.F., the Social Credit group, the Bloc Populaire, the Communist party and a considerable number of independents. It is true there were only four parties officially or semi-officially recognized. Nevertheless these other parties existed. Therefore the present situation with five parties in the House, or a multiplicity of parties, is not new to us, as pointed out by the last speaker.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The real reason that things do not move more smoothly than they do in this Chamber and were better, let us say, in the period 10 to 20 years ago is that in that period the rules were observed much more and there was a greater spirit of co-operation than now exists and has existed during recent years. During that period we did not have the constant raising of points of order and questions of privilege which has distinguished nearly every day's sitting of recent date. We
June 2, 196S

House of Commons Procedures did not have constant challenges of Speaker's rulings, which I think have done much to impair the authority of the Speaker and thus have made it more difficult to maintain order in the Chamber and to prevent a great deal of wasting of time.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what all this boils down to is that this institution is and will be what its Members make it. If Members show that sense of responsibility and selfdiscipline which is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic assembly, then the rule changes which are proposed will not be of too much importance and, in fact, within the rules under which we are at present operating we could continue without any undue difficulty.
This leads me, Mr. Speaker, directly into the few remarks I should like to make regarding the proposed limitation of the time taken by the daily question period. I think the proposal to limit this period to half an hour provides sufficient time, provided, and this is important, that certain conditions are met. The first of those conditions is that the questions themselves be short and within the rules. In recent years, particularly during the past five or six years, we have had more questions asked which were not within the rules than those which were within the rules. In particular, the custom has developed more and more of asking extremely long and involved questions, in fact of making statements rather than putting questions. If the question period is to be limited to half an hour, I think it is absolutely essential that the rules in regard to oral questions be strictly observed and that the Speaker be in a position to see that they are strictly observed.
The corollary of that, which is just as important, is that the answers given by Ministers must also be short and within the rules. We had an example today of what happens when this is not the case. I know from my own experience that there is always a temptation for Ministers to smuggle in, supposedly as an answer to a question, what should be put forward as a statement. I have done that myself and it has been done, I think, during the entire 20 years I have been here.
However, when there is no limitation on the length of time taken by the question period this is not so important. It is not a good practice but nevertheless it is not so crucial. But if there is to be a limitation of the question period this practice must be done away with absolutely; otherwise the rights of all Members of the House in regard to the

opportunity to ask questions are seriously impaired. So I hope that if this new rule does come into effect this is one of the conditions that Your Honour or whoever is sitting in your seat will ensure is observed. Ministers should not try to make long statements in answer to questions.
There is another point I wish to make. If this limitation is to work properly it is essential that written questions be answered promptly. This matter was raised today and also yesterday. There are a number of questions on the order paper today which have been there for a long period of time. Since the session started on April 5 some nine pages of questions have accumulated which appear on today's order paper and were placed there in the month of April. Yet here it is June 2nd and these questions are still unanswered. A further 15 pages of questions were put on the order paper between the beginning of May and May 15 and none of these questions has been answered. There is also a large number of questions which have been put down following that date.
I submit that if Members were able to receive prompt answers to the questions they put on the order paper they would not ask or feel it necessary to ask nearly as many oral questions as they do. If the Government is not prepared to answer written questions within a reasonable length of time, then once more this will prevent the satisfactory operation of a half hour limitation for the daily question period. I suggest that in answering these questions a limit of seven days should be imposed, that is to say, one full week from the time the question first appears on the order paper. If it has not been answered within that length of time then the Minister concerned should be required to give an explanation.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question at this point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Would he agree that some standard would have to be applied to the form of written questions and to the replies in the same way as he has indicated that some standard would have to be applied to oral questions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would look in our present book of rules he would see that certain standards are laid down at the present time. I think all that is necessary is that the standards laid down under our present rules be adhered
June 2, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1905
to. I do not see any necessity for any changes in that regard; I see no difficulty at all. But I think that the hon. gentleman will agree that the point is that throughout the time he has been here as well as throughout the time I have been here questions have been left on the order paper for weeks and sometimes for months when not one of those questions could not have been answered within a maximum of, say, two to three weeks. There might have been the odd exception where a question required a great deal of information in which case it should have been made an order for return and that explanation given. But apart from such questions, questions should not remain on the order paper for long periods of time.
I think that when we are making changes in our rules and providing for a maximum question period per day of half an hour this is one of the matters which will have to be taken into consideration and dealt with at the same time. As I have suggested, I think there should be a maximum period of seven days provided for answering a written question or otherwise a reasonable explanation should be given by the Minister concerned. This would put an end to the situation I have outlined because I do not think Ministers would submit themselves to the humiliation of getting up day after day trying to give some explanation for not having answered a certain question.
There is one other condition in connection with questions which I think is essential if this half hour limitation is to work satisfactorily and that is that on one day a week the length of the question period should not be limited to half an hour. This would enable some of the backbenchers particularly, who perhaps have difficulty being seen by the Speaker, to have the opportunity on at least one day a week to put their questions. I think again this is another matter which should be considered before any limitation of the question period to half an hour is put into effect. I think we in this House all want to be fair about these things, but it does seem to me that if the various conditions I have mentioned so far as questions are concerned were put into effect they would bring about a situation where a half hour question period four days per week would work satisfactorily and at the same time no member would be in a position where it would become impossible for him to put a question and receive an answer.
House of Commons Procedures [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I should now like to deal with what I think is undoubtedly the most important change proposed and that is the allocation of time for debate. Nearly all of us recognize that some half way house is required between nothing and closure under the situation which now exists. When the Government introduced this proposal the change did not represent a half way house but something more like a three-quarter or four-fifth-way house. That proposal was too extreme and the Government recognized that fact. It has now proposed that there should be a minimum period for each stage of a debate, and that is undoubtedly a considerable improvement.
There is one thing in connection with this matter which should be fully understood and that is that the minimum period provided for each stage of debate should not automatically be considered as the period to be adopted every time an allocation of time is brought in. I think it must be realized that a variation in the amount of time required for debate is inevitable and that in all fairness the debate in respect of some subjects will require a greater length of time. That is an essential element in the allocation of time rule. The minimum period allowed should not under any circumstances be looked upon as the amount of time to be provided on each and every occasion that this rule is invoked. A firm assurance on the part of the Government along this line would do a great deal to reassure a considerable number of us in respect of this whole matter.
If my understanding is correct, the allocation of time would be put into effect before any debate on any subject began. One thing that should be provided is a minimum period during which debate would take place before any allocation of time was put into effect. That again would go a long way toward reassuring many Members in this House in respect of this matter.
One of the reasons the Opposition parties in the House and the Canadian public generally were so concerned about the application of closure during the pipe line debate was that closure was imposed before the debate at several stages of that measure had started. If a minimum period for debate were provided in order to keep away from that kind of a situation before the allocation of time was or could be applied, this would provide a safeguard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Member permit me to ask him a question
June 2, 1965

House of Commons Procedures in this regard? I must say that the same idea crossed my mind, but it did seem to me that this might be open to objection and I should like to have the benefit of the hon. gentleman's point of view. Perhaps the House will allow me to expand a little on this point.
I am a little afraid that if the allocation of a time limit was made only after a debate had started an assumption would be made to the effect that the Government was applying this allocation rule because it thought there was some disposition on the part of the Opposition to use too much time. In other words, the situation would be subject to the charge of closure and that kind of an atmosphere might be created. I think, in any event, this procedure would be used very rarely because I expect that the Business Committee nearly always would be able to agree on a reasonable allocation. I do think there might be great danger of that kind of charge and countercharge the hon. Member for Calgary North does not want to see in this House. 1 must say that it is very refreshing to hear the hon. gentleman's moderate voice, if I may use that term, once again during the debates of the House. I would be interested in hearing his views regarding my suggestion, and I hope I have made it clear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the rules provided for a minimum period for debate on any measure before an allocation of time was put into effect the fear expressed by the Minister of Transport would not exist because it would be understood that the application of the allocation of time rule would not commence before a debate started. There would be two or three days, whatever time was agreed upon, allowed for debate before an allocation of time. The Government could then ask the Business Committee to consider the matter of the allocation of time, perhaps a day or two after a debate had started. In any event, if we had that limited period of debate before the allocation of time I am sure a better atmosphere would exist. I think the Minister will agree that such a procedure would help to create a better situation and eliminate any ground for the kind of fear entertained by the Minister. There are bound to be some questions of that kind arise under any circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite right.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question concerning a part of his remarks which is not clear to me? The hon. Member has spoken about allocation as some-

thing which would be brought forward by some kind of a motion on the part of the Government. I visualize and hope that nearly all applications of an allocation of time rule in the House would be the result of unanimous agreement on the part of representatives of all parties. I view that as being the method of programming the business of the House. How would the hon. Member apply allocation of time by unanimous agreement of all parties, in an effort to schedule the balance of a legislative program prior to a recess, if there was some rule which required that each individual measure must be debated for a certain period of time before an allocation of time could be applied?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the unanimous agreement of all parties that a debate should be limited to three, four or five days or even one day was obtained, then the measure in question would be adopted expeditiously because the Members of the various Parties would not continue to debate it. For this reason I think the point referred to by the hon. Member automatically disappears. The safeguards to which I refer would relate to those occasions upon which unanimous consent was not obtained and when the Government, because of a timetable or for other reasons, wanted a debate concluded within a certain period of time. As long as we have unanimous consent by the House anything along this line can be done, as the Minister wTell knows. Therefore I do not think the point referred to is germane to my remarks.


George James McIlraith: It is germane to the main thing provided for in the proposed rule.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is provided for, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is something in the nature of a half way house between nothing and closure, which is the situation we now have. I think most of us are prepared to agree that something should be done to change that situation but we are not agreeable to something which is too extreme. The Government realized that what it proposed at the beginning was too extreme. We have now had various safeguards suggested and I am suggesting another one which I think would be advantageous.
The hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) suggested that there should be a week between second reading and the committee stage and a week between the committee stage and third reading. I think that is a sound idea. It is my understanding that some Members on the Government side of the House have agreed
June 2, 1965

with the proposition that there should be a week between second reading and the committee stage. Whether there should be a week between the committee stage and third reading can be argued, but I think the suggestion relating to a week between second reading and the committee stage is one which will be accepted without question.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would hope the Government would move in that direction. I think one of the things we have to realize is that any limitation of time for debate runs into the basic difficulty that the right of every Member to be heard in this House, if he wishes to be heard, is impaired or in fact destroyed. Therefore our study really has to be with regard to how we can preserve the individual Member's rights in that respect to the greatest degree possible and at the same time introduce something which will serve to enable the time of the House to be allocated in a more reasonable manner than has often been the case in the past.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this difficulty can be met to some extent at least by extending the hours of sitting, even so far as to sit all night if necessary in some cases. This is a matter which one or two other Members have mentioned. I think in most cases this would provide the opportunity for any Member who really wanted to speak and had not had the opportunity to do so to make his contribution to the debate. This would be particularly essential, I believe, in the committee stage of any bill with regard to which there was an allocation of time. As a result of extending the sitting hours and having an all night session if required, it would be possible for each of the clauses of the bill to be dealt with and at the same time it would provide the necessary opportunity for every Member who had not been heard up to that point to have his say in regard to the matter which especially concerned him and which was to be found in one of the clauses. I believe this is something we will have to look into. It might impose a very considerable strain if the hours of sitting were extended and there were a number of evenings when we in fact sat very much longer hours. The strain might be greater than was the case, at the time of the automatic adjournment at eleven o'clock, which was in effect for years after I first came to this House, and latterly since the ten o'clock adjournment came into effect.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about the time allowed for esti-22620-122
House of Commons Procedures mates. The proposal that was first made was unreasonable because only 24 days would have been available for the actual discussion of estimates, interim supply and so forth if the full 12 days allowed were spent on supply motions. I am very glad that the Government has agreed to a modification of this proposal. Essentially the modified proposal will provide 30 days for estimates and interim supply, and this should provide sufficient time if it is properly used. In connection with that matter I should like to make the point that the 22 departments-there are really 22 plus a considerable number of agencies-should have one day allotted to each so there will be an opportunity for each department to have a full day's airing and discussion without the interruption of other business. This, of course, would take up 22 days and would leave 8 days for dealing with the other agencies which do not specifically come under these departments. This time could be spent in the consideration of interim supply, supplementaries and for clearing up all the departments not finished in the day allotted to them.
I think provision should be made so there will not have to be unanimous consent to sit beyond the hour of adjournment so that an extension of time cannot be blocked by a limited number of Members. There should be provision that during the last two days of supply 24-hour sittings would be provided if necessary so that all the items could be called and every Member would have the opportunity to raise any matter which was of particular concern to him. I think that if this were done it would ensure, first of all, that all items were actually called and that they would not at the end of the allotted time be lumped together and passed without any or very little discussion. At the same time, and more importantly, it would ensure that every Member would have the opportunity to raise any particular matter which he felt it was essential for him to raise.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think the reference of all the estimates to specific committees is a very good way of dealing with estimates and will provide an opportunity to obtain a great deal more detailed information. Our experience in the Estimates Committee, which the Conservative Government of which I was a member set up a few years ago, and in the External Affairs Committee has indicated that the fact is that you can discuss the estimates in a much more efficient and effective way in committee where
Juns 2, 1985

House of Commons Procedures the Minister and the officials of the department can be present and be asked detailed questions. This is much better than attempting to deal with the estimates on the floor of the House where the Minister has an official or two sitting in front of him who try to relay answers to him, which sometimes he gets properly and at other times he does not. Also, in many cases there really is not enough time for the officials to provide an adequate answer. Therefore I am in complete accord with the proposal to have a great deal of the estimates work done in committee. I think this would considerably improve our examination of the financial affairs of the nation.
I have mentioned that 24-hour sittings should be provided if necessary on the last two days that estimates are considered. This leads to the proposal that the adjournment hour will not be automatically ten o'clock, as it is at present, and unanimous consent would not be required before we could continue beyond that time. It would require 10 Members to rise and oppose the adjournment. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a forward move. It would be an advantage because very frequently if we could take another half hour or hour we could clean up business which, if left over, might take another day. It has always seemed to me to be unreasonable that one single Member of this chamber, because of annoyance, pique or something else at the time, can prevent the consideration of a particular matter going forward for another hour or half hour when all other Members present are prepared to sit longer.
In this connection I would say that in some circumstances, such as the committee stage under an allocation of time as I have mentioned and the days on which estimates are considered, there should be a definite provision for the time of sitting to be extended whether or not 10 Members are opposed to it. In such circumstances I think the requirement should be that the majority of the Members of the House should oppose an extended sitting. In other words, if a majority of the Members were in favour of continuing the sitting the House should continue to sit. In certain circumstances, and particularly in the two cases I have mentioned, I do not think the power of veto over the hours that we sit should be given to 10 Members, let alone, as we have it now, to one Member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?
[Mr. Harkness.l


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if he has any specific suggestion to make as to what we would do about staff problems in connection with these marathon sittings?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the staff problems always manage to get solved. They were solved in the days when there was no automatic adjournment and when sittings very frequently did go on for a good part of the night. In other words, this is really a mechanical matter of staff adjustment which I think could be fairly readily handled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit another question? Does he not realize that the people who were part of the staff in those days are now all dead and that we do not want to kill the current members of the staff?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. Member must realize that the people who were Members of this House at that time are now all dead, too. This is something that happens to all of us. I do not believe any of them died because of the hours they worked; at least, if there were any cases of that nature they were extremely rare.
I believe that the proposal to sit during meal hours will impose a certain strain, especially when Committees of the House are dealing with estimates. I suggest there should be some modification of this rule in order to deal with that situation. I think it might be reasonable for us to sit during meal times up to the time when all of the Committees have been formed and have started consideration of the estimates. This rule might then be suspended for a month, say, while the major part of the Committee work was being done. Then sitting through meal hours could be resumed. Certainly if Members are going to sit all morning on Committees until one o'clock, which has been the normal thing, and then start sitting in the House for the rest of the day, perhaps with Committees sitting during the time the House is sitting, it will not make for the efficient and effective conduct of public business. At least during the month or so of intensive Committee work the normal hours of adjournment for meals which we have followed in the past could be continued.


Mr. Aiken:: And give the staff a break.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) says, thinking
June 2, 1965

particularly of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it would also give the staff a bit of a break.
There is one other matter I should like to mention before I refer to the amendment and that is the strengthening of the authority of the Speaker. This is essential if the business of this House is to be conducted more effectively than it has been recently. In fact, a good many of my earlier remarks bear on this particular point. The abolition of appeals from the Speaker's rulings is an excellent move and is essential if we are to strengthen the authority of the Speaker. I believe everyone here agrees that a continuing Speaker or a permanent Speaker, whatever you wish to call him, would be a considerable advantage. This would in itself strengthen the authority of the Speaker and make it much more difficult for Members to challenge the authority of the Speaker. They would be much more willing to accept his rulings, and so on.
As I gather the sense of the House and the ideas of Members in talking to them privately, I think that undoubtedly a majority of the people in this chamber are in favour of having a continuing Speaker. I do not believe the constitutional difficulties which were raised in connection with the matter are really any bar at all to bringing about this situation. It is very easy to get over the constitutional difficulty to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) referred. I think one of the things that should certainly be done when we are considering rule changes is to provide a means by which a permanent Speaker will be part of this institution, if not during this session at least for the Parliament that follows the present one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a question on that point? Does the hon. gentleman not think that the best way of achieving a continuing Speaker is the way it is done at Westminster, by convention, insteady of trying to incorporate something into the rules?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I certainly believe that the Speaker should represent an actual constituency and be a Member of Parliament like the rest of us rather than representing some artificial constituency such as Parliament Hill as has been proposed. I think that the Speaker, if he is to have the position of respect to which he is entitled, needs to be exposed as the rest of us are to constituency problems and things along that line. In other
22620-122*
House of Commons Procedures words, Members of the House must feel he is one of them and is not set apart from them in so far as his method of election and everything else are concerned. The only way in which this can be brought about is to follow the British system of agreement not to oppose the re-election of the Speaker. I fully agree with that. I believe this is the way it should be done.
Mention was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of providing some financial arrangements for a continuing Speaker at the time he retires. I think this, too, is essential. I believe everyone in the House would agree that some provision along that line should be made so that the man who occupies this extremely important position would have no real financial worries as to what his situation would be when he retires. In addition, he would not feel he had to hold on to the position indefinitely or until death claimed him because of possible financial worries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I should like to ask him another question which I believe will bring out his point. Would the hon. gentleman not agree that what all of us are seeking is an independent Speaker rather than a permanent Speaker? I think there is some advantage in having him continue for two or three Parliaments, if that can be done, but the really important thing is to be sure he is completely independent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would agree with the hon. gentleman from that point of view. Certainly what we want is a Speaker whose independence everyone in the House recognizes. In order to give him that independent position you have to do some of the things I have just mentioned. I think there is no real difficulty in making this provision, whether or not you do so by statute. It is not necessary to pass an Act as long as you get agreement on all sides of the House that a certain course of action along this line is going to be followed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. Member the consent of the House to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to thank the Members of the House. I should like to apologize for having taken so much time. I thought I was only going to speak for 10 or 15 minutes but some hon. gentlemen opposite have helped to lengthen my speech.
June 2. 1965

House of Commons Procedures


John Whitney Pickersgill: We like to hear you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the
amendment and subamendment now before the House, I may say I feel it is reasonable that when you allocate time for a measure there should be a limitation on the length of the speeches. I would agree that 20 minutes is a reasonable time so far as most Members are concerned. I believe you have to make an exception with regard to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and also at second reading stage, particularly when a bill is introduced by a Minister. Frequently, if a bill is complex in nature the Minister introducing it is bound to have to take more than 20 minutes to explain it properly. It is only reasonable that under those circumstances the people I have mentioned should have a longer period. I would have no objection to having a limitation of say an hour for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or a Minister introducing a piece of legislation. But the remainder of the Members of the House should be limited to 20 minutes so that an opportunity would be given to as many as possible to have their say on a piece of legislation which, by its nature, would be contentious or otherwise there would not be an allocation of time for it.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make. The hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) has said that the Government, if it wishes to invoke closure, has the power to do so under rule 33. Frankly, a lot of this talk about allocation of time is really a refusal to face up to the responsibility of invoking rule 33. The guillotine has now come into operation, and I would say it came in wrapped with a flag because this seems to have been the motivation respecting a good many of the proposals which have come forward and about which we heard earlier.
I should like to make an appeal to the Government with regard to the proposed rule changes contained in paragraph 1 of order No. 14. Since these have now been amended in such a way as to be acceptable to the House, I suggest that we take out paragraph 10 of order No. 15, which deals with a revised Standing Order 65, and make a minor adjustment in Standing Order 65 which I have suggested to the Leader of the House, namely, that in the fifth line of the first paragraph the words "with all con-

venient speed" should be replaced by the words, "within 10 sitting days after it is appointed". In other words, the striking committee will have to report earlier, which would guarantee that the committees would be set up earlier.
I have previously spoken about the lack of guarantee of action to institute the committees and get them going. Personally I think the Government proposal is weak and that such an amendment would strengthen it. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is quite unacceptable. I have spoken about it previously and indicated my reasons for saying so, and I stand by them.
It is an accepted principle of the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), as officers of the House, should be exempted from any restrictions on time. They will exercise their good sense in this regard and they should not be put under any such restriction. Similarly, when important legislation is introduced a Minister should not be restricted and neither should the Member replying immediately thereafter. As to other Members, we now have a 20 minute limit on speeches at the resolution stage and we will see how we get along with that.
A problem has arisen with regard to the interpretation of the provisional Standing Order dealing with the resolution stage and I think clarification is needed to show that a Member speaking for 20 minutes should not be precluded from re-entering the debate either to put a question or to continue some points he has made. It would be very difficult to limit a Member at the committee stage to 20 minutes, if that period were interpreted as being all that was allowed for his total contribution. There is general agreement on a 20 minutes limit at any one time.
I again make a strong plea to the Government that paragraph 1 of order No. 14 be separated from the rest of the resolution. There are precedents for doing this, and the arguments advanced last year in favour of the division of a resolution apply even more strongly on this occasion. The two suoject matters of allocation of time and the length of discussion on estimates are quite separate and could easily be divided.
We can accept one with but little more debate and get on with the setting up of the committees. A committee has to be set up to draft a report on the consequential
June 2, 1965

changes that will need to be made with regard to debates on estimates. That will take some time, as will the naming of the committees and their organization. It could conceivably take many weeks if we wait for the whole package deal. Therefore I suggest we divide the resolution, accept those portions which are readily acceptable to everyone, and discuss and negotiate with respect to the remainder.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I think we should have an answer from the Government. We are attempting to change rules by open debate, which is very good indeed but it does take up considerable time of the House. There are arguments in favour of doing it this way and arguments against.
The argument against is that when alternative proposals are put forward the Government should state either its acceptance or rejection of them so that we will know where we stand. If there is complete rejection of proposals then we can carry on debate, have a vote and impose the will of the majority.
My feeling with regard to rule changes has always been that they should be arrived at by general agreement. My experience in the past on committees dealing with the rules under the chairmanship of the Speaker was that there was general agreement before the House was asked to modify its rules. But now we seem to have gotten ourselves into a situation where a change in the rules is going to be imposed by majority unless, as I stated earlier, by talking across the floor we arrive at a consensus which is favourable to major changes.
We had quite a discussion last week on the first part of the resolution. Various modifications were agreed to as a result of the debate. There may be some reluctance here and there with regard to that portion of the changes in rules but so far as the parties are concerned there is general acceptance of an experimental process with regard to limiting the time for estimates and reducing the number of supply motions.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
That portion of this measure should be separated from the controversial part which deals with the allocation of time element. That portion should be adopted by the House so that we can get on with the setting up of
House of Commons Procedures the committees and assigning the estimates to them. Otherwise we shall continue to argue about the controversial question respecting allocation of time. I have expressed my dissent with regard to it. It is covered by a phrase which makes it palatable to those who do not understand what is going on. It is called allocation of time. In other words, this is a means toward the orderly arrangement of our business. But in actual fact it is the worst form of closure which has been devised within the system of parliamentary democracy. When I spoke on a previous occasion I pointed out that this was closure. And I am opposed to closure; I am opposed to the limitation of time as envisaged in that particular section of the resolution.
Somewhat reluctantly I went along with the idea of an over-all imposition of a time limit on consideration of the general estimates. I did not think it was necessary but I was prepared to go along with that particular change on an experimental basis. However, I continue to be opposed to this closure plan which is decked out like a sugar pill so that people will swallow it. It is suggested that a Business Committee shall meet and that the representatives of the five parties in this House should decide that there is to be a limitation of time imposed on some debate. If that did not prove satisfactory, then the Government would itself impose a limitation on the time. That is closure. We have a closure rule on the books. The proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) the other night simply lifted the closure rule as it stands on our books and incorporated it into his amendment. The closure rule, once applied, limits everybody to a 20 minute speech from the period the motion comes before the House until one o'clock at night. Then the debate is over and done with. The hon. Member lifted that provision out of the present closure rule and incorporated it into his amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he not be fair and say that the proposal made by my hon. friend from Greenwood did have at least one difference? Standing order 33 places a limit of 20 minutes on all those taking part in the discussion under that order. Is it not a fact that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Greenwood provides 40 minutes for some Members?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not wish to impute motives to any hon. Member, but I think the hon. Member for Greenwood was thinking
June 2, 1965

House of Commons Procedures in terms of the leader of his party or of the leaders of the other small parties. He wanted them to have 40 minutes while the rest of us in the House would be restricted to 20 minutes. It does not matter what areas or what constituencies the rest of us represent. In the opinion of the hon. Member for Greenwood, if they are not in the N.D.P. group or the Social Credit group or the Creditistes they are to be restricted to 20 minutes. The leaders of the groups I have mentioned would be allowed 40 minutes. Why this should be I do not know. What constituencies do they represent which are superior to the constituencies represented by the rest of us? I take the most serious objection to that proposition.
Of course, I objected at the time to his downgrading the Leader of the Opposition, an officer of this House, by lumping him together with the leaders of other groups in this Chamber as if he did not hold an important, indeed, an essential position in our system. The Leader of the Opposition is theoretically the alternative to the Prime Minister. We recognize that these two men are officers of this House and have a special position in it. I would resist equally a move to reduce the position of the Prime Minister. This has been done by introducing the 40 minutes proposal, 40 minutes for the Prime Minister of this country and an equal amount of time for the Leader of the New Democratic group. It does not make sense.
We look to the Prime Minister to set out the case for the Government. A great responsibility rests upon the Government in introducing legislation into the House of Commons. Governments stand or fall on their actions in this connection. Is it intended to restrict the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government party, to 40 minutes and then give the Leader of the New Democratic Party or the Leader of the Creditiste party or the Leader of the Social Credit group 40 minutes in which to tear down his proposition? It is ridiculous and that is why I have no use for the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Greenwood. Although he modified the closure rule by introducing this sop of 40 minutes he was actually lifting out of the rule book the closure provision.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. It appears to me we have become deadlocked on this particular section of the proposed rule changes. I do not see much difference of opinion with regard to the other changes which will come

before the committee of the whole House but on this controversial issue we are reaching a state of deadlock and this is where negotiations are essential.
We listened last night to three Members of the Liberal party speaking on behalf of the private Members of this House and saying that if limitation of debate were allowed any such arrangement would have to include protection for the private Member. But it just cannot be done. Once debate is limited, 200 or more Members of this House are prevented from taking part. If debate is restricted to a two day period, 14 hours in all, and if 20 minutes is allowed to each speaker then 42 members could take part and 222 others would have to sit silent or leave the House or just stand up and be counted during the final vote. I am glad to see that some members of the Liberal party are now realizing that the privileges of private Members will be seriously restricted under this newfangled closure rule which the Government is attempting to introduce.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



REPORT ON OFFICE OF SPEAKER-APPENDIX TO &quot;VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS&quot;

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Earlier this day the House agreed that Mr. Speaker would distribute a report on the Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons prepared by Professor Denis Smith. Mr. Speaker finds that the quickest and most economical way of providing copies for distribution to Members by tomorrow would be to print this paper as an appendix to today's English Votes and Proceedings. The French translation now in progress will be appended to the French edition of Votes and Proceedings as soon as the translation has been completed. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



EDUCATION


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking
June 2, 1965

steps to slow down the emigration of our graduate students to the United States because of the larger research opportunities and higher income levels which exist in that country and, to this end, in particular, to consider whether such object may be attained in part by:
granting an equivalent tax-free period to a successful student for each year spent on accredited postgraduate study and thereby provide our highly-trained people with an opportunity to recapture more quickly the costs incurred and the loss of earnings suffered by them during training periods.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is indicated in the motion itself. Basically it is twofold. First, it is intended to provide an incentive to our graduate population to continue their training. Second, it will provide an incentive to postgraduate students to remain in Canada or, if they take their postgraduate training in the United States, to return to Canada in order to take advantage of a tax-free period.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
You may ask, Mr. Speaker, why we in Canada should create such a privileged group in our society. In reply I can marshal many arguments, some of them which are included in the motion. For example, there is the shortening of earning period of someone who spends a large number of years in academic training. I could also indicate the great need for research scientists, university staff and other research workers in what is going to be a very large expansion of our university facilities in the very near future. This expansion, as many members know, is already under way and many universities are already facing a serious staffing problem in respect of the additional facilities for our expanding university population.
I think we would all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the future of Canada lies with our young population. As a small country we have to develop special skills and specialized industries if we are to compete in today's world. It seems to me that we must develop our human resources to the maximum possible degree and must take some steps to retain our most talented people instead of seeing them leave the country to take advantage of greater opportunities, particularly south of the border.
I would suggest that the new frontier for Canadians to explore is that of research and new technology. We in Canada have few products which can be truly identified, at least readily, as Canadian. We have not been able to develop those industries which are uniquely Canadian and which in my opinion will come about only by developing special
Aid to Postgraduate Students skills and industries. This we must do if we in Canada are to survive in this very materialistic world.
It is my opinion that in Canada the Federal Government particularly must play a much greater role in research by providing direct assistance to research in Canada if we are to achieve these goals. The structure of our industry is in my opinion partly responsible for the lack of uniquely Canadian industries or Canadian products. This is partly due at least to the parent-subsidiary relationship which dominates our entire economic structure. It seems to me that Canada more than any other western industrialized nation requires the Government to play a larger role if we are to meet the objectives to which 1 referred a few moment ago.
Salary opportunities in the United States are generally higher than here, but I suggest that the big draw in the main for our postgraduate students in going south of the border is the research opportunities which are provided by some industrial companies but principally at universities owing to the large funds available for research in the United States at those institutions. In comparison, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we are poor country cousins in this field, and perhaps this accounts in greatest part for the so-called brain drain which we have been experiencing in recent years. Perhaps many Members could quote statistics to show that the net emigration-immigration balance has been somewhat in our favour, but I would suggest that the most talented people, such as postgraduate students and so on, have on the whole been lost to Canada rather than gained by Canada and certainly in some particular fields we have lost much more than we have gained.
I would refer, for instance, to the medical field where I think we are rapidly heading toward second or third class medicine in Canada unless something is done and done very soon to reverse the trend and meet the competition which through U.S. funds is attracting our most talented researchers in this particular field. This is true in other areas too. I could refer to particular industries, such as some of the industries connected with space technology, aviation and so on, where again I think we would find that in these exciting new areas loss of skilled people has certainly been a very serious hindrance to the development of our own economy and to the specialized and sophisticated industries which are likely to become the growth industries of the future.
June 2, 1965

Aid to Postgraduate Students
I am also appalled to learn of the amount of United States funds spent in this country on research. I do not for a moment suggest that we should not accept this money, but it does seem to me that there has been too great a reliance in Canada on U.S. support for research programs at some of our universities, particularly in the medical field. When the recent United States restrictions on dollar exports came into effect about a year ago there was almost panic in some of our medical research colleges because of the threat to their programs which were under way at that time. Fortunately I think we have in large measure escaped that immediate threat, but it certainly demonstrated in no uncertain fashion the acuteness of the problem to which I am referring today.
Last January I had an opportunity to meet with a number of members of the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are greatly concerned about the lack of Government support in Canada for medical research. I think it would be rather altruistic for us to feel that this support for medical research or for any other kind of research in Canada is going to come from other sources than the Federal Government. The basic problem, as I see it and as I indicated earlier, is the parent-subsidiary relationship which we have in our industrial society, which has pretty well meant that most of the research done by these organizations, in many cases international organizations, is going to be done by the parent company and is likely to result in the development of products which are going to be identified largely as United States products. Thus under these conditions in no way can we hope to achieve any kind of specialized industries emanating out of research.
Getting back to the problems in the medical field, we are now talking of medicare as an urgent social need in Canada. I am one of those who support that view. But only a cursory examination of the whole plan reveals that medicare may be almost impossible without considerable expansion of our medical colleges and the staff to man them. In this particular field especially, Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said that university staff and research people are synonymous. The only way you can get an adequate medical staff of top calibre is to provide extensive research facilities in order to keep these people in the academic world. They obviously can make much more money by practising their professions than by teaching. If we are to compete
[Mr. Moreau.l
with the tremendous United States programs, with almost unlimited funds for the support of medical research in one form or another, we must begin to thing seriously in this regard.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This whole problem in respect of a research policy in Canada as it applies to the medical profession is one of the most pressing with which we are now faced. It is not my belief that the proposal I have made to the House today will provide a coherent or dynamic research policy in Canada. However, if this measure is adopted this in itself would indicate and recognize the fact that we consider this to be an urgent problem and that we are willing to tackle it immediately at some level.
One might very well ask how this proposal could work. If one of our postgraduate students was weighing the advantages of a position in the United States against a similar position in Canada, the immediate advantage of a tax-free period for each year spent on postgraduate study would have a tremendous bearing. I should point out immediately that all our Government assistance programs in education are available only at the graduate level. An immediate tax advantage during a period of perhaps three or four years would carry considerable weight.
Naturally if an individual had taken his postgraduate studies at M.I.T. or some other United States university he would have to come to Canada and remain for at least three or four years in order to obtain such an advantage. It is my contention that such a student having lived here for four or five years would have developed some roots, some seniority rights, some advancement in the company for which he worked and would probably have married, with the result that his mobility would be considerably lessened. On that assumption I feel that my proposal has some merit and that it might work.
It certainly would provide incentive to many of our graduate students to go on to postgraduate work. In fact, it would also provide an incentive to some of our graduates who are now working to go back to university for specialized training in specialized skills. Those individuals would then be able to make a considerable contribution to our economy.
We do have special considerations in respect of our tax laws, for instance, for wasting assets, particularly in the case of mining taxation. We provide a three year tax-free period for new mines coming into production as an incentive to people to develop these
June 2, 1965

resources and as partial compensation for the wasting assets they have. I would ask hon. Members to consider that perhaps a fully trained man is now in the same category as a wasting asset and that perhaps a special tax consideration of this kind would not be out of order.
Another argument I might put forward is that, while I am not a particular admirer of the Russian way of life, we must recognize that Russia has achieved a considerable measure of progress by setting up something of a special status for engineers, scientists, artists and other talented people. In other words, an individual who comes within that privileged group in that society is an individual who has developed special skills. These special privileges can be considered as incentives in that society which can perhaps be regarded as not a free society. I think we must admit that they have attained a considerable degree of progress in certain fields. I feel, therefore, that this proposal is not too far out of line.
I do not intend to speak very much longer and I should like to remind hon. Members of the House that a message has been received from the other place in respect of Royal Assent at 5.45. I hope they will keep that fact in mind during the remaining time available in order that the question can be put to the House before then.
The final point I should like to make relates to the cost of such a concession. The cost would not be high as we are not dealing with a great number of people in our economy, and if we weigh the contributions that those people can make to our economy, in relation to the cost this proposal, I suggest, has a great deal of merit. My final thought is that we have spent a great deal of taxation dollars on individuals by the time they have finished postgraduate training. We have contributed to their education through public funds during grade school, high school, university and postgraduate training. For that reason I believe we should adopt this proposal in order to protect that investment.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be heedful of the hon. Member's suggestion regarding brevity. It is too bad he wasted it on me because I am always brief, although perhaps not as brief as I myself think I am! I will not utilize one-third of an hour as he has done. But I do not hesitate to add that he used the time advantageously.
I appreciate the hon. Member's views and I compliment him for bringing forward this 22620-123
Aid to Postgraduate Students very interesting suggestion. The brain drain problem, as we all know, is not a new one. I suppose a country such as ours, in proximity to a larger, more wealthy and more populous country, would naturally suffer from the compelling forces which emanate from that larger entity, and certainly they come very strongly to the people with skilled training and higher education.
While it is not usually wise to use the expression "crisis", nor any other emotionally loaded word, too casually, I think we can say at the present time we do face in all areas of education in the country something of a crisis. Our universities are encountering the largest population potential of students ever. More graduates were turned out this year than ever before. More of them will wish to go on to postgraduate work, but not all of them will be able to do so.
The hon. Member's suggestion is a good one, and if I had any criticism of it it would be that it is somewhat inadequate in view of the immensity of the problem. I certainly support it. I intend to conclude my remarks so there will be time to vote on this resolution, and I will vote for it.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We will never be able to resist completely the strong pull to the south. It will take many, many years to bring about a situation in which our universities are able to offer to graduate students the kind of things which are offered by institutions such as Harvard and Yale. Many of our graduates do go south to obtain their postgraduate training and often they do not come back for the reason that the institution in which they take their higher degrees, having spotted their capacity, will immediately draw them to its bosom, because they have all sorts of research projects and opportunities in their larger and wealthier universities which we are not able to provide here.
I believe we are going to find it increasingly necessary for the Dominion Government to be helpful in this field. There were certain things done in the income tax field a few years ago which helped in this respect. National Housing Act legislation was introduced which benefited our universities. There are a number of things which the Dominion Government can do and there are a great many more things it must do. It has seemed to be the pattern that helpful participation by the Dominion Government is more readily accepted the higher you go in the educational level.
I noted what the hon. Member said about United States funds. There were times when
1916	COMMONS
Aid to Postgraduate Students postgraduate students, especially in the social sciences, a field in which I am most interested, would, if it were not for the largesse of American institutions and foundations, have found the going very hard. What the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations have done for Canadian scholarship is a long and glorious story and they deserve the greatest credit. We have had some recent difficulties in that some institutions of this kind in the United States feel that the Canada Council should be filling the gap. Some of our students have encountered difficulty there.
It is a matter that has always concerned me-it is not within the ambit of this resolution but I would like to mention it in passing and I think those of us who are interested in education must always mention it-that the Canadian record of individual and private largesse does not compare at all favourably with that of the United States. There are a few Lord Beaverbrooks but not so many, and we do not have the great private foundations which can be of such assistance in this respect. There is too much of a tendency to leave it all to the Canada Council. It is interesting that some people who philosophically often impress upon you their views that the Government that does least is the best Government will, in a case of this kind, be quite content to leave it to some quasi-govemmental agency.
I think the hon. Member, in his discussion of the National Research Council, has a good point, too. I do not know what is intended in the upcoming legislation; I cannot understand what is going to be done there. But I hope it will result in an enlargement of the National Research Council. It should be able to do a great deal more in the field of encouragement of and assistance to postgraduate training. I must also point out that we are still requiring greater emphasis upon the social sciences rather than the natural and physical sciences.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, and if there had been anything with which I could have disagreed, I would have disagreed briefly. But I commend the hon. Member for this step, this thought. I see no reason why anyone should regard this as setting up an improperly privileged class in our society, and indeed I agree with him that this small measure would add, I think significantly, to the training and developing of our great human resources, because we shall need them as never before. The demand for teachers and professors alone is staggering as one projects the requirements of the next few years. Of course, all these facilities cost money; libraries, and laboratories cost money
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	June 2, 1965
and there are tremendous demands of many kinds.
I would congratulate the hon. Member and would hope that this is just one idea which will be accepted. I cannot refer to other items on the order paper, but I am very pleased that in this session there have been a number of matters such as that raised by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) which show a wholesome and intelligent interest in this problem of how best to utilize the natural ability of our young people. I commend the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, and support his point of view wholeheartedly.


Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would the hon. gentleman say that we should do more to encourage private benefaction? The Americans, to whom the hon. Member referred, and the British have done so much for scholarship and are doing a great deal in the way of offering inducements to increase private benefaction. Does the hon. Member think that our tax laws should be so fashioned as to encourage foundations?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly in support of the resolution before us, limited and inadequate as it may be. Many observers have deplored for many years the loss to Canada of many of its young people who have been going to the United States for their training and employment. In fairness, however, I think we should remember that through the years Canadian universities and industries have been built by immigrants from many parts of the world. A visit to any campus or any large industrial enterprise will confirm this fact. Canada would be a poor place if we were dependant entirely upon native sons to build these enterprises in education and business. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree that no young Canadian should be obliged to leave home because of lack of opportunity to be trained or employed. To avoid this I suggest three improvements which might be made at once, apart from the one contained in the resolution.
First, reduce the cost of attending university today. This is something that could be done within a few hours if this House made up its mind and was given leadership by the Government. I have in mind that at the University of British Columbia
June 2, 1965

just last week the President told the students that the planned increase in fees would not be made if the per capita grant to universities across Canada was increased from $2 to $3 per person. I am quite certain that the announced increase in university fees in various universities across Canada would not be made and would not be continued for the rest of this year if the Government were to act at once in increasing the per capita grant right across this country.
Second, improve the research facilities in industries and universities. Students do complain about the poorer facilities in Canada compared with those in the United States. This applies not only to public institutions supported by the Government of Canada but also to the facilities supplied by private industry.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Third, provide the latest information to students wherever they may be in the world. In support of this last contention, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote an editorial entitled, "Plugging the 'Brain Drain' ", which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of December 14, 1964:
There would be fewer plaintive Canadian cries about the "brain drain" from this country if others showed the same initiative as President Murray G. Ross of York University in seeking out expatriate Canadians.
In a recent speech in Toronto Mr. Ross told of a trip to the University of California where he arranged to meet the Canadian students doing graduate study. Of the 147 Canadian graduate students at the university more than 100 came to hear Mr. Ross and bombard him with questions about Canada.
Here was Mr. Ross' conclusion:
"It seemed to me that these students were saying that because they had little contact with Canada, because few people or organizations seemed interested in their return to Canada, and because there seemed to be small assurance of adequate research grants for young scholars in Canada.. . they tended to look with favour on job offers in the United States."
Mr. Ross reported the students as saying that almost all the job offers came from the United States and the few coming from Canada arrive "very late in the academic year-after their decision for the year ahead has been made."
"The only contact with Canada all seem to have," he said, "is a questionnaire sent to them by the Federal Government. None were impressed by this form."
Not much in all this indicates that Canada is really concerned about the loss of specially trained persons. If the universities need teachers as badly as they say they do or if industry is really looking for highly qualified personnel, they should be haunting places like the University of California...
Most Canadian students go to American schools because of the specialized courses available or to accept scholarships. Most intend to return home.
Aid to Postgraduate Students
But they lose touch quickly and too many will be permanently lost to Canada unless those who need their talents have enough initiative to attract them back.
Considering the variety of things you get in Canada, it should not be too difficult for the Government to arrange for some public agency to keep Canadian youth, wherever they may be in the world, informed regarding opportunities for training and employment in this country.


Mr. Gerald Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief, but I am glad to support the views put forth by the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), to the effect that scientists or specialists constitute a strong asset for a country such as Canada and that all possible steps should be taken to keep them in this country.
I do not think his motion is designed to prevent other scientists or specialists from settling in Canada, but, on the other hand, we are just as anxious as anybody else to keep all our talented people in Canada by offering them interesting proposals and conditions.
The main task of our universities consists in supplying the Canadian market with the brains it needs, and not foreign markets in the large proportion prevailing at the present time. The suggestions of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough might provide a solution to this problem, but in the course of a study or of the application of legislation concerning this problem, other solutions would, certainly be found. I feel that the mere suggestion of this solution by the hon. Member for York-Scarborough is already a step forward.
Some thought should also be given to the instillation into our students of very strong national and patriotic feelings in order to make them realize the urgency of putting their talents at the service of their country, in the first place, and indirectly, of all mankind. It must be admitted, however, that patriotic feelings alone are not sufficient to keep in our country all our talented people, because as the Latin proverb goes: Primo vivere, delude philosophari-that is, let us live first, and then indulge in philosophy.
I feel that the required means should be sought as soon as possible because the more we delay, the more our talented people will emigrate to foreign countries. The passage of this motion will enable us to find other means in addition to those suggested by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and then we
1918	COMMONS
Aid to Postgraduate Students shall perhaps be proud to have succeeded in putting a stop to this brain drain.
It should be kept in mind, however, that since education comes under provincial jurisdiction, there should be no infringement on provincial autonomy in the solution of this problem.


John (Jack) Davis: First, I should like personally to congratulate the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) for developing this resolution. I think his is a particularly ingenius way of helping to stop the brain drain from Canada. Personally, I am going to lay this measure, along with some others, before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for his serious consideration in connection with his budget for next year.
I think, too, that because of the widespread interest in the subject of research and development, and more particularly in respect of keeping gifted, educated young Canadians in Canada, we might well recommend that this subject be referred to one of the new Committees which will be set up under the new regulations with regard to procedure. We should have an opportunity to call before such a Committee the members of the new science secretariat. The committee could also send for other people across Canada who can be expected to express considered views as to the course of research and development in this country and the contribution which it could best make to our economy.
In looking over the motion proposed by the hon. Member for York-Scarborough, I noticed that he outlined several of the root causes for this brain drain. One is the relatively high level of income in the United States, that is, the higher level of income available to engineers and scientists. The other is the larger research opportunities in that country. Both of these reasons are basically economic ones. In other words, if we solve some of our economic problems we will be able to stem the brain drain and, vice-versa, the retention of this body of gifted knowledge in Canada will, of course, help improve our economic lot.
I should like to point out that the general consensus amongst economists these days is that the growth of an economy is due to two substantial factors. One is an increase in population, the employee working force, in effect, and the other is an increase in productivity. Most economists now also agree that

DEBATES	June 2, 1965
the increase in productivity is due mainly to new and better ideas. The industry of ideas, in other words, is perhaps equal to population growth as a force for expansion in a modern economy. Scientists, engineers and technicians are therefore vital to the growth of our Canadian economy. We must attract as many as we can from other countries. We must keep as many home as we can. We must bring back those graduates who take advanced degrees in other countries in order to increase our rate of productivity and improve the efficiency of our economy, as well as see that it expands as a result of population growth.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Our effort in this country must be directed along economic lines. I am referring specifically to expenditures in respect of research and development. I believe we should channel some part of our research and development expenditures into industries which are the bread and butter industries of the nation, industries which are today the most productive, industries which show the greatest growth prospects for the future. We must, in other words, reinforce success rather than spread our efforts across the entire spectrum of industry, across the entire field of research and development activity. We must call our shots. We must do this not only in respect of individual industries but we must also pay attention to the regional aspects of research and development. We must recognize the results of experience in other countries. The experience there is that you have a few large science based complexes in operation, not dozens of small establishments scattered far and wide.
This is true, for instance, in the United States. In the Boston area around the Massachusetts Institutute of Technology you have not only university research facilities and government financed laboratories but also science oriented industries. You have the three major institutional aspects of development and there is an interplay of ideas and an exchange of information and knowledge between these three major institutions -the universities or the centres of education, the government research laboratories and the private firms which are interested basically in the profit motive.
Out in California you have a similar development at Stanford where you have universities and businesses and governments all acting together. In this country we are about
June 2, 1965

to make a start so we too must decide what areas should be backed up in respect of research.
I personally decry the decentralization of some of our government research establishments. They should be around the principal university areas. They should be in areas where industry is already research oriented. As a specific example, I do not think that the Forest Products Laboratory, now located in the constituency of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), should be moved to Sault Ste. Marie. I think it should probably be expanded but located in close proximity to an area where there are one or more universities and a considerable industrial base. It is through this practical approach to research and development that we are likely to become more proficient in producing new ideas, new methods and new products in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Davis: Perhaps I should yield the floor to other hon. Members who are expressing ideas from their seats, but may I be permitted one or two minutes in which to wind up my remarks?
The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) has made several significant speeches on research and development. He has given us many statistics comparing our industrial research and development effort with that of other more industrialized nations, and we appear to a considerable disadvantage in these comparisons. We have to step up our industrial research and development effort by a multiple of six in order to equate the present per capita level in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. We have to put more emphasis on applied research as distinct from basic research. I do not mean to imply that we should cut back the expenditure that we are making in respect of Government research, pure research, by such institutions as the National Research Council. This should expand by, say, 10 per cent a year or in line with that of other countries, but in order to catch up in the applied field, the practical field of development, we have to step up our industrial research.
We have also to step up research in our universities. We have to step it up to a rate of about 20 per cent per annum and maintain it over a period of years in order to get it into a balanced relationship akin to that in industrially advanced countries.
Aid to Postgraduate Students
We must shift the emphasis of Government expenditure. Today over 80 per cent of our money goes into pure, fundamental research with no direct application to our economy. Less than 10 per cent goes to industry and less than 10 per cent to the universities. This relationship must be changed. It must be changed with something like 40 per cent going to basic research, with the rest to applied research in industry and in the universities. We must also develop science oriented complexes where the universities, industries and the Government research establishments are located side by side.
We cannot have dozens of them to begin with. We can only have a few and we must be selective. We must make difficult decisions in this connection. Only in this way will we be able to keep those young people at home who have been trained at public expense and who drift to other countries to seize opportunities there.
I think I have proven quite conclusively, especially in respect of my remarks on economic growth, that we can forgo the income tax that these young people will not have to pay if the recommendation of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough were to be accepted by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Hum-bolt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would resume my seat immediately if you would put the question so we can vote on it. If not, I should like to say a few words.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I had a few remarks I wanted to make but there is so little time left that I think I should yield the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) who also would like to speak on this motion.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to engage in this interesting debate but I should point out that this is just one of the many aspects of taxation which no doubt is under consideration by the Carter Commission.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit me to ask a question before he continues? I think all hon. Members would be interested to know whether he has been authorized to speak on this resolution by his Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gor-
1920	COMMONS
Aid to Postgraduate Students don). Apparently the Minister is unable to be here this afternoon and I should like to know whether the views being expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary are those of the Minister.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Member may I say that 1 stand here on my own feet expressing my own views, which is a right that is accorded to Members who sit on this side of the House. From time to time private Members are able to speak and express their own views, and I wish to put it on the record that I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me the opportunity to say that I am speaking only for myself.
From my very brief experience in having some contact with the preparation or rather observing the consideration given to the budget in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, it seemed to me there were many questions of taxation raised with regard to which it was suggested relief ought to be considered, and this suggestion of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) falls into that group. But it was thought they should be deferred pending the report of the Carter Commission. Dealing with the merits of the motion, I might say that there is another aspect to the question which may have escaped the mover of the motion. In my opinion one of the reasons why we are having this so-called brain drain is due to the fact that we have failed to give sufficient recognition to our postgraduates in industry in positions of responsibility.
This has been one of the great attractions for these trained men in the United States where, in the new scientific age in which we move, it is realized it is imperative that these men be put into executive positions where their experience and knowledge can be put to greater use by various industries in fields other than research. I would point out to the House that a speech along this line was made by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) to the professional engineers assembled in
DEBATES	June 2. 1965
Hamilton a short time ago and, if I may be allowed to quote from that speech, he said:
The most important economic task facing Canada as a nation over the next decade-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Member's most interesting speech.
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
An Act to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An Act to amend certain acts respecting the superannuation of persons employed in the Public Service, members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
An Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate.
An Act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.

Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the resolutions relating to the improvement of procedures in this House. Should that be concluded tomorrow we will then take up item No. 3 on today's order paper, continuation of the second reading of the bill relating to banks and banking.
It being seven minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 3, 1965