1965-05-05

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, last night during the course of the late news Mr. Ab Douglas of CJOH-TV, had
this to say:
Once again absenteeism in the Conservative party-failed to topple the Liberal Government. This proves that John Diefenbaker no longer has the support of his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Members of his party failed to vote because they do not want to topple the minority Liberal Government.
I cannot vouch for the exact wording, Mr. Speaker, because I was denied a transcript of the broadcast.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, these words are not in accordance with the facts. Following I give you, the House and the country the percentages of the attendance at Monday night's vote:	Progressive Conservative, 85.11 per
cent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Liberals 79.85 per cent-


Mr. MacEwan:: Come on; jeer now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Social Credit, 77.78 per cent; Ralliement Creditiste, 69.23 per cent; and N.D.P., 61.12 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Knowles:: What about Thursday?


Eric Alfred Winkler: It will, of course, be borne in mind that the Social Credit party, voting with the Government, maintained the Liberal party in power. My question of privilege is this, that Mr. Douglas should not in a political, partisan manner falsely impute motives in regard to members of the Conservative caucus, nor should he mislead the public in this way.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the crown appoint special counsel to prepare tax evasion charges and/or to act on its behalf in a criminal investigation regarding tax evasion by a Mark Smerchanski, of Winnipeg, Manitoba? If so, what was the counsel's name, the date of his appointment, the amount of fees paid to him as of the present date, was he instructed to prefer criminal charges against Mark Smerchanski as a result of his investigation and if so. when, and, as a result, what criminal charges, if any. were recommended to the crown?
2.	Did the crown proceed with any criminal charges against Mark Smerchanski as a result of such recommendations and, if not, for what reason?
3.	At what date if ever, did the crown instruct counsel to discontinue any criminal proceedings against Mark Smerchanski? If so, on whose authority were these instructions issued?
4.	Did the crown receive any out of court settlement in the Smerchanski case? If so, when, what was the amount, and what items did it cover?
5.	During the period between the instructions, if any, to counsel to institute criminal proceedings and any out of court settlement did the departments concerned, including the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Revenue or the Prime Minister receive any representations, of either telephonic, letter, or personal visit form with regard to this case from any of the following residents of greater Winnipeg, Joseph O'Sullivan, or Gildas Molgat and, if so, when, and what was the gist of such representations?
6.	Were the books, records, and accounts of Mark Smerchanski and any companies or partnerships in which he had an interest seized by the Department of National Revenue or any of its agents, and, if so, on what date did this take place and on what date were they returned?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Without engaging in a discussion of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act, I wish to point out that the taxpayer mentioned in the question has appealed to the Exchequer Court of Canada and the matter is thus sub judice.


BICULTURALISM COMMISSION-QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	Is Professor Meisel, of the Political Science Department of Queen's University, employed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?

May 5, 1965
Questions
2.	What is the nature of his duties?
3.	What are the names and addresses, and occupation of those he has authorized to conduct a survey of members of the House of Commons?
4.	What are the names and addresses of person or persons that were consulted in preparation of the oral and the typewritten questionnaire authorized by Professor Meisel for use in the survey of members of parliament?


Mr, Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bi-culturalism as follows:
1.	Yes, on a part time basis.
2.	He is one of the research supervisors under the director of research.
3.	Only the Commission authorizes the conducting of research studies. Professor Meisel's duties are supervisory.
4.	The questionnaires were prepared on the responsibility of the commission after consultation with only research staff and technical advisers of the Commission.


PROVINCIAL CENTENNIAL PROJECTS
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	How many projects in each province have been approved for grants in the federal-provincial centennial grants program?
2.	What is the total amount granted for each province to date?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of of State):: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
1.	Number of Centennial Projects approved by Centennial Commission as at April 6,
1965:	Local	Conf.
	Centennial	Proje
Newfoundland	Projects 24	1
P.E.I.		1
Nova Scotia		1
New Brunswick	1	1
Quebec	6	
Ontario	144	
Manitoba	5	1
Saskatchewan	59	
Alberta	6	
British Columbia		1
Yukon		1
N.W.T.		
Total	245	7
	-	-
2.	Amount of Grants approved by Centennial Commission as at April 6, 1965.

	Local	Memorial
	Centennial Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	$ 139,842.00	$ 2,500,000
P.E.I.		2,800,000
Nova Scotia		2,500,000
New Brunswick	20,210.00	2,500,000
Quebec	1,549,999.99	
Ontario	1,776,586.52	
Manitoba	12,935.00	2,500,000
Alberta	653,001.50	
Saskatchewan	93,376.01	
British Columbia		2,500,000
Yukon		2,500,000
N.W.T.		250,000
Total	$ 4,245,957.02	$15,550,000


SAGUENAY RIVER CHANNEL DREDGING
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Wilt dredging operations be started soon in the Saguenay river channel near Chicoutimi?
2.	What will be the cost of this project?
3.	After these works have been carried out, what will be the maximum tonnage allowed for vessels berthing in the port of Chicoutimi?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Planned for 1966.
2.	Estimated to cost $500,000.
3.	Ships having a loaded draft of 26 to 27 feet will be enabled to dock at Chicoutimi by making use of the tides.


FOREST ACCESS ROADS, CHICOUTIMI COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What was the federal government's financial participation in the building of forest access roads in the county of Chicoutimi since the inauguration of the program?
2.	What is the total mileage of roads constructed in the county to date?
3.	Are there other projects under way at the present time and, if so (a) what are they, and (b) what is their estimated cost?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisier of Foresiry):: 1.	$149,617.
2.	36.3 miles.
3.	(a) (i) Forest inventory-Lac Poulin de Courval; <ii) Fire protection buildings- Saguenay Domanial forest, (b) (i) $18,000; (ii) $36,000.


CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 71(A)(6) INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	How many certificates have been issued by the Minister of Industry under the provisions of section 71(a)(6) of the Income Tax Act?
May 5, 19G5

2.	What is the name of each company to whom a certificate has been issued?
3.	What is the nature of the new manufacturing or processing business being carried on by each such company, and what is the description of the designated area in which each such manufacturing or processing business is being carried on?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1,	2 and 3. No certificates granting exemption from income tax have been issued by the Minister of Industry under section 71a of the Income Tax Act. Such certificates are issued only after firms have fulfilled the requirements of the act for the year concerned. The first new businesses to be established after commencement of the program on December 5,	1963, are just completing their first
qualifying year.


LETTER BOX PICK-UP CONTRACT, THE PAS, MAN.
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Was a Post Office Department letter box pickup contract formerly held by Mrs. Margaret Drin-nan or Drinnan's Transfer of The Pas, Manitoba, terminated during 1964?
2.	With whom was a new contract entered into?
3.	Were there any representations in this regard and, if so, by whom?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes.
Drinnan's Transfer.
2.	Mr. Cal Gibson, The Pas, Manitoba.
3.	The contract was authorized in accordance with section 23 of the Post Office Act. There is no record of any representations.


ANSE AU FOULON, QUE.-CUSTOMS EXAMINATION HALL
Mr. Beaule: 1.	Is the Department of Transport authorized to build an examination hall for baggage in shed "A" at Anse au Foulon, Quebec, for the Customs Branch of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	What has happened to the plan submitted by the Customs Branch of the Department of National Revenue for construction of this examination hall?
3.	What was the estimated cost of this examination hall?
4.	What will the National Harbours Board ask as an annual rental from the Department of National Revenue for the use of this hall if it is built?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The National Harbours Board informs as follows:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	See answer to part 1.
Questions


TRANSATLANTIC PASSENGER AND CARGO TRAFFIC
Mr. Beaule: 1.	How many transatlantic passenger vessels berthed at the Anse au Foulon quay, in Quebec, to disembark or load passengers for Europe, in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?
2.	How many transatlantic passenger vessels called at Quebec, en route to Montreal, and disembarked passengers in years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?
3.	How many transatlantic passenger vessels passed Quebec en route to Montreal, in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?
4.	How many transatlantic cargo vessels berthed in the port of Quebec to deliver goods to Quebec, and to accept delivery of goods for European destinations in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1983, 1964?
5.	How many transatlantic cargo vessels stopped at Quebec, en route to Montreal, in the years
1960,	1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?
6.	How many transatlantic cargo vessels passed Quebec, en route to Montreal, in the years 1960,
1961,	1962, 1963, 1964?
7.	Does the Department of Transport plan to improve and enlarge the port of Quebec and, if so, what plans have been developed?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
National Harbours Board informs as follows:
1.	1960-10; 1961-5; 1962-5; 1963-4; 1964 -2.
2.	1960-114; 1961-65; 1962-80; 1963-65; 1964-58.
3.	No record.
4.	1960-854; 1961-801; 1962-810; 1963- 794; 1964-838.
5.	1960-283; 1961-237; 1962-287; 1963- 253; 1964-202.
6.	No record.
7.	The shipping facilities at Quebec harbour are under constant review by the National Harbours Board, and additions and improvements are made in the facilities when justified. In 1964, capital projects comprised construction of grain elevator annex, reconstruction shed A, construction of cross wall building, modifications to marine towers, paving of roadway to Berth 50, repairs to wharf and installation of drains at Shed A, asphalt paving at Wolfe's Cove terminal, and minor items including the following:
Construction of a police station at Princess Louise Docks, renovation of Cold Storage Office, modifications at the Cold Storage Fish House, and installation of telephone exchange at the grain elevator.
Funds expended on capital account during the year was $3,197,163.
Maintenance and repairs for the year amounted to $628,088.00.
During 1965 Capital Works are planned including an extension to St. Charles Estuary

May 5, 1965
Questions
Wharf, construction of Shed B, gear rooms and offices at Princess Louise Docks, fire protection in sheds, fast freezing equipment in Fish House, access roadway to Levis Wharf, Water Supply and Fire Protection System at St. Charles River Estuary Wharf.



* ROYAL COMMISSION QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

["I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.\nAnswers 1 and 2. Centennial Projects in the County of Bruce, Province of Ontario approved by the Centennial Commission to April 9, 1965:\nMunicipality\nTownship of Eastnor Village of Teeswater\nTown of Hanover\nProject\nPark\nInstallation of Artificial Ice in Teeswater-Cul-ross Memorial Arena Pavilion on Park lands\nDate Approved\nFeb. 19, 1965 Dec. 7, 1964\nAmt. of Fed. Cont'n Appr.", 'Dec. 7, 1964\t4,374.00']
Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed that the answer is as follows, and again the source was the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism:
1.	The Committee of the Privy Council by P.C. 1963-1106 approved by the Governor General on the 19th of July, 1963, appointed the Commissioners " . .. under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution ..." And further: "that the Commissioners adopt such procedures and methods as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry."
2.	To conduct a research study to assist the Commissioners in carrying out the provisions of the terms of reference referred to in the answer to part 1 above.
3.	The questions were drafted on the responsibility of the Commission.
4.	See answer to part 1 above.



Mr. Coates: 1.	How many projects in each province have been approved for grants in the federal-provincial centennial grants program?
[Mr. Cantin.l
2.	What is the total amount of grants for each province which as been approved to date?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following
answer by the Centennial Commission.
1.	Number of Centennial Projects Approved by Centennial Commission as at April 8, 1965:
	Local	Conf. M.
	Centennial Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	24	1
P.E.I.		1
Nova Scotia		1
New Brunswick	1	1
Quebec	6	
Ontario	144	
Manitoba	5	1
Saskatchewan	59	
Alberta	6	
British Columbia		1
Yukon		1
Total	245	7
2. Amount of grants approved by Centen-		
nial Commission	as at April 8,	1965.
	Local	Memorial
	Centennial Projects	Projects
Newfoundland	$ 139,848.00	$ 2,500,000
P.E.I.		2,800,000
Nova Scotia		2,500,000
New Brunswick	20,210.00	2,500,000
Quebec	1,549,999.99	
Ontario	1,776,586.52	
Manitoba	12,935.00	2,500,000
Saskatchewan	93,376.01	
British Columbia		2,500,000
Yukon N.W.T.		250,000
Total	$ 4,245,957.02	$15,550,000


PROFITS OF POST OFFICES, VILLENEUVE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouette: What net profit was made by each of the post offices in the county of Villeneuve during the years 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The net profit
made by each of the post offices in the county of Villeneuve for the fiscal years 1962, 1963 and 1964 is not available. Complete alloca-
May 5, 1965

tion of all costs chargeable to the conduct of operations and the provision of services in each individual post office is not being made and cannot be provided.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, VILLENEUVE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouelie: Questions
1.	What amount was spent by the Department
of Public Works in municipalities in the County of Villeneuve during the years 1962-63-64?
2.	On what projects were sums spent?
3.	Does the Department have projects under way and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2.
Location	Project	1961-62	1962-3	1963-64Bourlamaque	Maintenance and operation	$ 4,063.80	$ 4,094.45	$ 4,464.47Cadillac	Maintenance and operation	1,405.00	1,440.00	1,440.00Survey for Post Office	521.58Duparquet	Survey for Post Office	750.00Lac Blouin	Survey	345.00Lac Boyer	Survey	425.00	Lac Demontigny Water lot	50.00Lac Dessarat	Dredging	810.86	8,318.65	200.00Lac Duparquet	Wharf repairs	7,501.00Lac La Motte	Dredging	200.00	Lac Lemoyne	Advertising	20.40Lac Lois	Wharf construction and survey	2,091.71	3,779.75	Water lot, repairs to concrete walls	2,635.80Lac Maurier	Wharf construction	7,003.80	Lac Preissac	Wharf repairs	4,253.30	2,771.27Malartic	Maintenance and operation	7,977.08	7,529.88	10,226.96Repairs and re-roofing	6,233.50	Wharf repairs	-	3,012.47	5,363.06Noranda	Maintenance and operation	12,697.19	14,963.97	18,351.09Riviere Solitaire	Demolition and reconstruction of wharf	6,625.00	Rouyn	Maintenance and operation	11,119.27	8,599.18	10,185.51To complete additions and alterations	35,128.17	Site and legal fees	6,001.14	Val d'Or	Maintenance and operation	10,743.03	10,876.68	14,185.11Maintenance and operation	20,733.90	10,976.70	13,602.52Construction of wharf	-	-	13,960.493.	Yes. Duparquet, Construction of Post Office building; Evain, Construction of Revenue Post Office building; Remigny, Wharf repairs; Val d'Or, Construction of R.C.M.P. detachment building.


TOLL BRIDGE, FORT FRANCES, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Board of Transport Commissioners any responsibility for the toll bridge between Canada and the United States at Fort Frances, Ontario; if so, what were the total number of passengers or vehicles which crossed this bridge in the past five years and what was the income received by the owners of the bridge in that period?
2.	For the past ten years, how much have the owners spent on repairs or changes in the bridge structure?
3.	Is the bridge transit company a directly owned subsidiary of the Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company; if so, where is the head office of this corporation?
4.	How many such toll bridges in private hands exist between Canada and the United States?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	Yes. Pursuant to section 42 of the Railway Act, the Board of Transport Commis-

May 5, 1965
Questions
sioners for Canada has a toll jurisdiction. According to the records of the board based on the reports received, the total number of passengers for the five year period 1960-64 inclusive is 3,251,650. The total number of vehicles which crossed the bridge during the same period is 2,483,692 and the total net income for the same period is $215,294.
2.	The figures available cover only the period 1959 to 1964 inclusive. During that period, the total amount spent on repairs is $108,997 or an average of $18,166 per year.
3.	Yes. The head office address is North-star Centre, 7th and Marquette Streets, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.
4.	Two bridges and one tunnel.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS, BRUCE COUNTY
Mr. Loney: 1.	In the county ol Bruce, what centennial projects have been approved to date?
2.	What are the municipalities, the dates approved, and the amounts approved?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
Answers 1 and 2. Centennial Projects in the County of Bruce, Province of Ontario approved by the Centennial Commission to April 9, 1965:
Municipality
Township of Eastnor Village of Teeswater
Town of Hanover
Project
Park
Installation of Artificial Ice in Teeswater-Cul-ross Memorial Arena Pavilion on Park lands
Date Approved
Feb. 19, 1965 Dec. 7, 1964
Amt. of Fed. Cont'n Appr.

Dec. 7, 1964	4,374.00



NORTHLAND LODGE, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the name of the person or group who operate the Northland Lodge along the Roger's Pass section of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	When was the said lodge constructed and upon what date did the present operators obtain the right to operate it?
3.	Were any tenders called for the right to operate the said lodge and, if so, what is the name of each person who tendered a bid and the amount of each bid?
4.	If tenders were not called, by what method were the operators selected?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1.	Northlander Motor Lodges Ltd., 2285 Commissioner St., Vancouver, British Columbia. President-H. J. C. Terry; Secretary- H. H. Hartford.
2.	The right to operate the lodge was given April 19, 1963. A building permit for the construction of the lodge was issued August 21, 1963. The lodge was partially opened to the public on July 20, 1964.
3.	Yes, but in addition to the lodge, the successful tenderer was required to establish a service station, coffee shop and general store with space for a post office, as well as to submit the most satisfactory proposal in regard to the quality of the proposed development in respect of architectural design both
[Mr. Cantin.J
exterior and interior, landscaping, quality of service to the public, quality of furnishings and equipment to be provided, demonstrated ability to finance and operate the concession.
Name of Tender	Amount
Selkirk Development Ltd.,
640 West Hastings Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia.	$ 3,400
White, Stafford and Owen-Flood,
Banff, Alberta.	5,000
Metro Hotels Ltd.,
11311-105 Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta.	10,100
Columbia Motel Development Corp. Ltd.,
11328 Jasper Avenue,
Edmonton, Alberta.	10,000
Rogers Pass Chalet Ltd.,
(Graham, Blais, Feehan & Smith)
830 Tegler Building,
Edmonton, Alberta.	3,400
Rogers Pass Chalet Ltd.,
(McLaws, Davis, Leslie, etc.)
301-8th Avenue, S.W.,
Calgary, Alberta.	4,001
Westisle Development Co. Ltd.,
510 Sharpe Street,
New Westminster, British Columbia. 3,400
May 5, 1S65

Name of Tender	Amount
S. Notaris, B. Marmaras, G. Marean and D. Dacila, 629 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.	10,000
Dr. H. Links and Associates, 10951-124 Street, Edmonton, Alberta.	13,600
Timber Steel Structures Ltd., 2190 West 5th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.	5,133
McFord Development Limited, 13120-125 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta.	10,000
Northlander Motor Lodges Ltd., 2285 Commissioner Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.	5,000
Glacier Village Limited, 1030 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.	6,000
4. Not applicable.



FEDERAL CENTENNIAL PROJECTS

Mr. Mather: 1.	How many Canadian Confederation Centennial projects have been approved at federal level?
2.	What is the estimated cost, in dollars, of such projects?
3.	What is the number and estimated cost of these projects, by provinces?
4.	How much federal centennial money remains to be allocated for projects?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
1 and 2. Canadian Confederation Centennial Projects approved by the Centennial Commission to April 12, 1965:
Estimated Number Total Cost
Local Centennial Projects 264 $21,274,753.39 Confederation Memorial
Projects	7	37,150,000.003. Local Centennial	Projects	approved toApril 12, 1965:	EstimatedProvince	No.	Total CostNewfoundland	29 $ 925,273.00	New Brunswick	4	178,650.00Quebec	6	5,420,000.00Ontario	150	8,774,300.17Manitoba	5	84,915.55Saskatchewan	64	1,338,986.67Alberta	6	4,552,628.00
Questions
Confederation Memorial Projects:
Province	No.	Estimated Total CostNewfoundland	1	$6,000,000.00P.E.I.	1	5,600,000.00Nova Scotia	1	6,000,000.00New Brunswick	1	6,300,000.00Manitoba	1	8,000,000.00British Columbia	1	5,000,000.00Yukon Territory	1	250,000.004.	Federal Centennial Grants funds unallocated to specific projects:
Local Centennial Projects $14,231,395.93 Confederation Memorial Projects 7,750,000.00



CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO VATICAN

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Did the Prime Minister's office receive a copy of a resolution from the Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus in August of 1964, advocating the appointment of a Canadian Ambassador to the Vatican?
2.	If so, was the receipt of such resolution acknowledged and in what terms?
3.	What are the government's present views with regard to the appointment of a Canadian Ambassador to the Vatican?


John (Jack) Davis: 1. The Prime Minister's office and the Department of External Affairs have not received a copy of a resolution of the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus in August, 1964.
2.	Answered by (1).
3.	The question of the appointment of a Canadian representative to the Vatican was raised in the House on February 22, 1965, and was replied to on March 3, 1965. There has been no change in the government's policy since then.



STANLEY PARK SEA WALL, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Basford: 1.	To date, what has been the total cost to the federal government of the sea wall at Stanley Park?
2.	How many miles are completed and how many remain to be done?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. To date the total cost to the Federal Government of the sea wall at Stanley Park has been $646,784.99.
2. 4.2 miles have been completed and 1.3 miles remain to be done.

May 5, 1965
Questions



CENTENNIAL PROJECTS APPROVED, NIAGARA DISTRICT

Mr. McMillan: What centennial projects have been approved to date in the Niagara District in the Counties of Welland and Lincoln?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Centennial Commission.
List of projects approved to date in the Niagara District.
County of Welland: 1, Township of Willoughby, Park; 2. Village of Crystal Beach, Library; 3. Town of Fort Erie, Library.
County of Lincoln: 1. City of St. Catharines, Park; 2. Town of Grimsby and Township of North Grimsby, Park; 3. Township of South Grimsby, Park; 4. Township of South Grimsby, Public Library; 5. Township of Louth, Addition to Municipal Offices.



EXTENSION OF FRENCH BROADCASTING IN B.C.

Mr. Caouette: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Minister concerned receive in 1961 a petition signed by some 10,000 French Canadians from British Columbia, requesting the extension of the French radio and television networks to Vancouver and Victoria and, if so (a) what happened to this petition (b) for what reason was no action taken in this connection (c) would French Canadians not have the same rights in British Columbia as the English speaking have in Quebec, Rouyn, Val d'Or, Montreal, Chicoutimi and other towns?
2.	Does the government plan to establish this radio and television service in order to do justice to the French Canadians of British Columbia?
3.	When does the government plan to take action in this connection?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that in 1961 a petition was received from "1'Association Ca-nadienne-frangaise de la Colombie-Britan-nique" requesting the extension of the French radio network to the Vancouver region.
(a)	A reply was sent to the secretary-general of the association explaining the formula applied by the corporation in carrying out its extension of coverage program to Canadians of both official languages.
(b)	The petitioners were informed that, as the estimated costs on a per capita basis were considerably higher than the costs estimated for many other areas of Canada also without service, the provision of French language stations in British Columbia would be considered after the areas with a lower cost per capita had been served.
(c)	Yes, see 1 (b).

2 and 3. Government policy in this respect is to be considered after the Fowler Committee on Broadcasting has made its report.



COST OF MAINTAINING IMMIGRATION OFFICES ABROAD

Mr. Dionne: What is the cost of maintaining the Canadian Government's Immigration offices abroad?


Mr. Huberi Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Final figures on expenditures for the administration of Canadian immigration offices abroad are not yet available for the complete 1964-65 fiscal year. However, expenditures for the first 11 months of the fiscal year amounted to $3,003,189.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS. QUEBEC

Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many people who have filed claims with the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Riviere-du-Loup and Montmagny appealed to the Board of Arbitration in 1963 and 1964?
2.	How many decisions were (a) upheld (b) changed?
3.	How much was overpaid to claimants who were not eligible under the Act and Regulations?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. The number of appeals to the Board of Referees were:
Riviere- Mont-du-Loup magny
1963	1964	1963	1964118	112	104	732. Decisions upheld Decisions not	85	77	74	54upheld	33	35	30	19
3. No record available.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS, QUEBEC

Mr. Dionne: How many unemployed claimants applied to the local offices of Riviere-du-Loup and Montmagny in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Initial applications for benefit filed by claimants were:
	Montmagny	Riviere- du-Loup
1959-60	5,936	13,2391960-61	5,921	13,0531961-62	4,930	11,2851962-63	4,535	10,6671963-64	4,724	9,8161964-65	4,574	9,998
May 5, 1965

Questions



ADMINISTRATION COSTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

Mr. Dionne: What were the administration costs of the Unemployment Insurance Act in Canada, each year, since its adoption in connection with (a) civil servants salaries in every class (b) salaries of the members of the Board of Referees (c) building maintenance?
Hon. A	. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):		
		Remu-	
	Civil	neration	Building
	Servants	Board of Main-	
Year	Salaries	Referees	tenance1942-43	$ 2,715,014	$ 3,584	$ 370,9561943-44	6,760,952	16,367	523,6681944-45	8,176,514	25,282	563,7181945-46	10,807,132	35,157	837,5891946-47	14,570,791	76,842	944,8271947-48	14,071,983	68,962	1,007,3491948-49	14,862,105	61,627	1,486,5911949-50	15,755,951	63,124	1,724,4781950-51	16,908,680	72,658	1,686,3501951-52	18,614,720	59,455	1,578,2421952-53	19,835,023	91,491	1,654,1981953-54	20,830,716	77,595	1,773,3931954-55	22,626,907	81,691	1,916,7671955-56	22,788,521	81,142	DPW1956-57	23,379,745	88,502	DPW1957-58	28,216,487	113,611	DPW1958-59	30,335,738	114,055	DPW1959-60	30,812,362	126,284	DPW1960-61	36,652,424	130,343	DPW1961-62	39,840,127	147,175	DPW1962-63	39,858,678	216,911	DPW1963-64	42,317,551	218,202	DPWUNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS PAID	Question	No. 227-Mr.	Dionne:	What was the amount	of benefits	paid to unemployed	people in Canada, each year, since the	adoption of the Unemployment Insurance Act?	Hon. A	.. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):	Fiscal	Year	Ended	AmountMarch	31, 1942	$	27,7531943	716,0131944	1,721,6661945	4,966,4831946	31,993,2401947	43,114,3291948	34,947,0201949	49,826,7521950	85,824,2021951	88,273,0521952	90,154,4371953	135,822,441	1954	186,851,513	
Fiscal Year
Ended
	Amount
1955	257,628,646
1956	215,205,544
1957	231,295,719
1958	385,076,330
1959	478,631,078
1960	415,234,067
1961	513,905,724
1962	454,739,439
1963	403,191,171
1964	365,654,718



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Dionne: What was the amount of contributions received by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Canada, since the adoption of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To March 31, 1964, $4,200,530,502.90.



REVIEW OF PREVAILING RATES, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	On what date was the last review of rates carried out by the Department of Labour for all prevailing rate classifications at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park?
2.	How soon will such a review be undertaken again?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The last review of rates carried out by the Department of Labour of prevailing rate classifications at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park was completed in June 1964, effective April 1, 1964.
2. These rates are being reviewed again at the present time.



U.S. RESEARCH EXPENDITURES IN CANADA

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money was spent in Canada in each of the past three years by the United States Government through its Department of Health, Education and Welfare and agencies like the National Institute of Health in research in the natural and biological sciences?
2.	Has the government any information as to plans by these American agencies to reduce these grants in the coming year?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1 and 2. This
information is not available.



ISSUE OF &quot;CD&quot; AUTOMOBILE LICENCES

Mr. Herridge: 1. Are "CD." licences issued to officials or other employees of the Department of External Affairs resident in Ottawa and if so, on what basis are these licences issued?

May 5, 1965
Order for Return
2. What are the names of the officials or other employees entitled to carry this type of licence?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Brewin: 1.	Does the Republic of South Africa continue to get the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff, as provided by the Customs Tariff Act, R.S.C. c.60 s.3?
2.	Does Canada get the benefit of any preferential tariff granted by the Republic of South Africa?
3.	What is the volume of imports into Canada from the Republic of South Africa and the items affected thereby, for the last year for which figures are available?
4.	What is the volume of exports from Canada to the Republic of South Africa which receives the benefit of a preferential tariff granted by the Republic of South Africa and what is the nature of the items so affected?
5.	Has any action been taken by the Governor in Council to withdraw the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff from the Republic of South Africa or is such withdrawal contemplated by reason of the fact that the Republic of South Africa has ceased to be a British country and within the Commonwealth of Nations?
6.	What votes have been cast by Canada in the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly in respect to any actions or declarations of the United Nations or any agency thereof in respect to the maintenance of apartheid or other forms of racial discrimination within the Republic of South Africa?
7.	What offices does the Government of Canada maintain in South Africa?
8.	Are such offices bound by any laws relating to apartheid in the Republic of South Africa?
9.	Has the Government of Canada made or caused to be made any studies, or has it undertaken or does it propose to undertake any studies or any course of action aiming at encouraging change in regard to the apartheid laws of racial discrimination within the Republic of South Africa?
10.	Will the Prime Minister of Canada at the forthcoming Commonwealth conference make any proposals in respect to the continued enjoyment of the Republic of South Africa of preferential tariffs within the Commonwealth?
11.	Is it anticipated that the subject of the attitude of nations of the Commonwealth in respect to apartheid in South Africa or the status of South West Africa will be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference and what proposals, if any, will be made by Canada in respect thereto?
Return tabled.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have had question No. 13 in my name on the order paper since April 5. Prior to that it was on the Order Paper for a month in the last
[Mr. Herridge.l
session. It is not too difficult to answer. I should like it brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and it should be answered in Hansard forthwith.
9 (2:50 p.m.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. Member
allow us to finish the procedural part of the proceedings, unless his intervention relates to the answer the Parliamentary Secretary has just given? Is this a separate question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise to standing order 26. It is at this time, immediately after the question period, that I want to rise to this standing order 26, and not after notices of motions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to standing order 26 to ask permission to put forward the following motion: I move, seconded by Mr. C. A. Gauthier, that the business of the house be now adjourned for discussion of a precise matter of urgent public importance, that is, the bad operation in the federal administration with regard to the extension to May 31 of winter works.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the motion we propose today is completely in order under standing order 26.
In the first place, this is a very precise and limited matter, namely the poor operation in the federal administration with regard to the extension of winter works until May 31. Second, as required under the rules, this is a matter of public importance for these two reasons. First, many municipalities throughout Canada asked for an extension of their winter works until May 31, and this extension was denied to most of those municipalities. This means that throughout Canada, in every province, many municipalities cannot benefit from the extension of the winter works which was announced one month ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). Moreover, the requests of only seven or eight municipalities throughout Canada were accepted and all others were turned down.
May 5, 1965

Second, the matter is of public importance because a great many of the requests made by those municipalities for an extension of the winter works period have been accepted by the provincial governments and turned down by the federal government. Now, this is a joint program carried out for the general public by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. While the provincial governments accepted numerous requests, the federal government did not pay any attention to that and turned down those requests. In proof of this, Mr. Speaker, there is project 90 of the municipality of Begin, in the constituency of Lapointe, projects 744, 745 and 746 of the city of Arvida, in the constituency of Lapointe, the project of the municipality of St. Eugene, in the constituency of Roberval and many others for which the request has been refused.
Mr. Speaker, the matter is not only of public importance but is also urgent.
Today is May 5 and this extension will expire on May 31, which means that those municipalities will not be able to carry on and complete their winter work projects unless this period is so extended. This being May 5, it is urgent that the federal government's ill-advised administration concerning extension of the winter works period be discussed today, otherwise municipalities will not be able to complete their winter work projects for lack of time.
The matter is urgent because many municipalities started their projects in November and progress was delayed because of the severe climate in some areas. This severe climate was the reason why the minister thought it advisable to extend the period of the winter works program. Only a few days remain to complete winter works projects and in some municipalities waterworks will not be operating for a whole year because the winter works period had not been extended for a few days.
It may be suggested that this is a day when this problem might be discussed during the debate on the budget. I would like to point out in this regard that the opportunity of discussing the problem will not be afforded us for the following reasons. First, according to the new order, or the new role, or the new list of speakers handed to us, our group will not be able to raise this problem because we have no more speakers listed thereon, and this is the last day of the debate on the budget; second, ministers, and particularly the Minister of Labour, do not feel any ob-
Winter Works Program ligation to discuss the matter of extending the winter works program period during the debate on the budget; third, this is urgent, but on the other hand, since we would deprive certain members of the opportunity to criticize the budget we shall have to cut short the budget debate by one day.
That is why I maintain that this motion is entirely in order, because it is a matter of urgent public importance that should be dealt with today, otherwise it would be too late;: moreover, this motion is not contrary to the provisions of paragraph 6, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of standing order 26.
For all those reasons, I submit that our motion is in order and that you should allow us to bring it before the house this very day.


Mr. Speaker:: What the Chair has to decide is whether there is a prima facie case of urgency as explained more or less in detail in citation 100(2) of Beauchesne. As we have said many times in this House, I believe, urgency within Standing Order 26 does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate. The House is presently engaged in the budget debate, and there may or may not be an opportunity to go into this important matter. Nevertheless I understand that within a matter of two or three days there will be a supply debate. I think that was announced; if not, it will be within a very short time. It does seem to me that opportunity to debate this important matter will therefore be provided.
In the circumstances I do not see an urgency so pressing that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside and the debate scheduled for this afternoon adjourned, in accordance with Standing Order 26.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, I understand your explanation that in a few days we might have the opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There should be no debate, as I am sure there will not be, on the ruling given by the Chair. The ruling was given under and by virtue of the Standing Orders as given to the Chair by hon. Members of this House, and no debate should take place at this time.

May 5, 1965
Motions for Papers


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you whether we are now following the procedure agreed upon last year; if so, according to this new rule, you must ask whether there are members of the house who have something to say, as was the case for the hon. member for Villeneuve. If we still follow the old rule, then we are at the beginning of a new session and we will be free to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to extend the fullest possible courtesy to the hon. Member the Chair has allowed him to speak twice, something which I think was not contemplated at the time the Standing Order was put into force and effect. I reiterate that the motion as submitted to me does not contain that sense of urgency that I find necessary in order to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26 so as to discuss this important matter. I do hope there will be no further discussion at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 7, 14 and 16 are acceptable to the Government. Motions 18 and 19 are acceptable, subject to the usual reservations. I should like to suggest that motion 8 be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall motions 7, 14 and 16 carry, and are motions 18 and 19 acceptable subject to the reservations expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be clear from the record, particularly as indicated by or insisted upon by the Minister of Transport when he was on this side of the House, that the phrase "the usual reservations" is insufficient and that the reservations must be clearly stated. [DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the reservation in mind in this case concerns correspondence, if any, from other Governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Are these motions agreed to subject to the reservation as expressed?


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary. Will the Government make a request to the Government of France in regard to these papers?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government of France is not involved in any of the motions now under discussion. I should like to suggest that motion No. 8 be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John B. Stewart: Would Your Honour please call motions 1, 3, 10, 17 and 20. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Hales:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters and other documents since the 1st day of January, 1964, exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in connection with the agreement providing for duty free trade within the automobile industry.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the agreement itself to which this motion refers has already been tabled some time ago. The letters and documents in question are working papers relating to successive drafts of the Canada-United States automotive agreement exchanged during the negotiation of this agreement. These are, therefore, privileged documents relating to the interim negotiating positions of the two parties, and it would neither be in the public interest nor in accordance with the normal practice to reveal such material. I would ask, therefore, if the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion in accordance with the usual practice. I will have somewhat similar remarks to make about motion No. 17.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour will realize the great importance of my request and will agree with me in this regard. Although it may be somewhat unusual I would ask you to call for the yeas and nays.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this transferring for debate is becoming a system that has all the elements of concealment. We never have the opportunity to get these documents. The House should have the opportunity of voting. This rule was never intended to be used by the Government to cover up its denial of in-
May 5, 1965

formation, and I take the strongest possible objection. We are talking about the reform of Parliament, yet on a matter so important-as the hon. Member for Wellington South has said, a matter that is being reviewed today in the United States Congress-this Parliament is to be denied information respecting something that is causing fear in the hearts of Canadians in every part of this country. We want to know what passed between these Governments so we will understand why Canadians who want to buy cars are discriminated against, and how Canadian manufacturers can sell cars manufactured in Canada in the United States and compete in that country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the circumstances may I call the attention of the House to Standing Order 47 which reads as follows:
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers shall be placed on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the Production of Papers". All such notices, when called, shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired by the Member proposing it or by a Minister of the Crown, the motion will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of Motion (papers)".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I point out the fact that we are to be muzzled in securing information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, it is commonplace over there. That is what they have been doing, and they are doing it regularly under the subterfuge of this order. I want to know why Parliament should be denied this information. Why do they not vote on the matter? If they say we are not entitled to it let them vote us down, but why do they place us in a position where we never can debate this matter?


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that when motions were called the Government indicated to Your Honour the motions with which it intended to proceed and the motions which it intended to transfer for debate. One motion was in fact transferred for debate on the request of the Parliamentary Secretary. He then asked that the rest be called. Having adopted that procedure, the Government presumably had disposed of all motions which were to be disposed of otherwise than by a vote or other disposition by the House.
So far as this motion is concerned, the hon. Member for Wellington South asked you
Motions for Papers
to call for the yeas and nays. At that particular moment the question was before the House, and I think it is too late for the Government to change their mind now and say they want this motion transferred for debate. They had the opportunity and did not do so.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit one additional point. How can we ever have a vote on such motions if the Government sees fit to have them all transferred for debate? We would not have the opportunity of a showdown vote on a motion. The only alternative would be to continue to appeal your ruling if you should rule in favour of the Government's argument in this regard.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to draw Your Honour's attention to standing order 47, which provides that only a Minister or the person proposing the motion may ask to have it transferred. The hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka argued that the request should have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary.


An hon. Member:: It was too late.


George James McIlraith: The request can only be made by a Minister of the Crown, and a Minister of the Crown did make such a request. Furthermore, once a motion is transferred for debate following such a request the time for debate is limited to two hours and forty minutes and the motion then has to be voted upon.


John George Diefenbaker: Hide and conceal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, if we accept the argument of the President of the Privy Council, then one motion was improperly transferred for debate. I think the Government has got itself into the position where the House has accepted the proposition of the Parliamentary Secretary and has accepted the procedure under which certain motions to which he referred, other than those which were acceptable and the one transferred for debate, were to be before the House for disposition.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) to the effect that only a minister can ask that a motion be transferred for debate is justified how is it that the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stewart) himself asked that motion for papers No. 8 in the

May 5, 1965
Motions for Papers
name of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) be transferred for debate?
If only a minister can ask that a motion be transferred for debate, we request that motion No. 8 be called again by Your Honour, since an irregularity was committed a little earlier by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly may I say that the remarks made by the Minister of Industry confirm the position taken on this side, because in his statement he actually was making a reasoned argument why this motion should not be allowed. He was not in any way asking that the motion be transferred for debate. Since the Minister had the opportunity to do so and rejected it, and since he outlined in his statement his reasons for objecting to the production of the papers, a situation has been created in which the House should be entitled to indicate its view by voting on the motion.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps in the heat of the moment we may have developed some misconceptions here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the first place, in order to save the time of the House, and by agreement, the Parliamentary Secretary does indicate on behalf of Ministers, rather than have them speak individually, what is going to be done. It is under this heading that the Parliamentary Secretary did suggest that motion No. 8 be transferred for debate. This is all done under a waiver of the rule that only a Minister of the Crown can ask that this be done, and this procedure is followed. Where, however, there cannot be a general agreement or an anticipated general agreement in dealing with a particular motion, the motion is called and the Minister speaks to it.
This is what happened in this case. It had been my hope that the hon. Member in whose name motion No. 1 stands, having heard the significance of the motion, would agree to withdraw it. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I am afraid somewhat out of order, did make an appeal to the House . and particularly to the Government. I find lt' his position somewhat contradictory when the Government offers him a debate on this topic and he refuses a debate but demands that it be voted upon.
[Mr. Gregoire.l


John George Diefenbaker: We want the information.


An hon. Member:: We do not want words; we want facts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope this motion can be transferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear the Minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member presenting the motion is not satisfied with the very limited explanation which has been given to him as to why this motion is not acceptable. I think the Government is not only doing the right thing but the generous thing in transferring this motion for debate.


Mr. Starr:: Big, generous brothers.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We are providing the hon. Member with an opportunity to express his views at length and receive a detailed answer, and finally to have the matter subjected to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope my words will be of some assistance in resolving this involved matter of procedure. It seems to me that the duty of the Chair is to apply the standing orders as they exist. Under Standing Order 47 we find this:
-but if on any such motion a debate be desired by the Member proposing it or by a Minister of the Crown, the motion will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of Motions (papers) ".
In consequence of the standing order I believe it my duty to have this Motion transferred for debate.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am afraid, Your Honour, that with great regret I must appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. Member for Wellington South has appealed to the House. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have
And more than five Members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members.
And the Members having been called in:
May 5, 19S5


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker's decision is sustained.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of

May 5, 1965
Motions for Papers
Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud). Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.


Mr. Ouellef:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General. Otherwise, I would have voted against your ruling.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to notice of motion No. 8 for the production of papers.
I never came to any agreement with the minister concerned with respect to this motion for papers. This afternoon, before the vote, there was some talk about transferring this motion for debate. Now, I want it to remain as it is and I ask the Minister of Justice to produce the papers requested.
During the last session, I had put this same notice of motion on the order paper. It was delayed for several weeks. I put it again on the order paper at this session, but there seems to be further attempts to dodge the issue by having the matter transferred for debate in the house.
I do not wish any debate for the moment. What I want is to get the documents so that we might discuss the matter and find out the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand and that the papers be tabled in the house.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, through my office, I had offered the hon. member for Shefford-and I repeat the offer in case it was not made sufficiently clear-to examine those documents privately, after which they would only be tabled if it was found necessary to make them public.
For my part, I do not think that the nature of those documents is such that it would be in the public interest to have them published. They consist of correspondence between a private individual and certain civil servants and deal with the relationship between those civil servants and their superior officers.
In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member if he would not agree to let his motion stand and to examine the documents

privately, after which he could decide. Unless he agrees to that, I will have to ask that the motion be transferred to notices of motions (papers).


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has just said, I have already had the visit of one of his officials. We looked through the file together, but I asked afterwards that my motion be maintained and the papers produced.


Guy Favreau: In that case, I ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion transferred for debate.



REPORT RESULTING IN RETIREMENT OF R.C.M.P. OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police which resulted in the forced retirement of chief superintendent Belec and subinspector Poitras.
Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) is now called. Is there any objection?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in the case of motion No. 3, it calls for the production of a report prepared by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I gather that it has always been the practice in this House not to order the production of R.C.M.P. reports, and for that reason I believe it would not be in order for me to agree to the motion as formulated.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 3 is transferred for debate.
NORRIS COMMISSION WORKING PAPERS Motion No. 10-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris Commission by the chartered accountants hired by the Commission and deposited by Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), is now called.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, because the acceptance of this motion would involve disclosing the working
May 5, 19G5



papers of the Commission, against the practice in the past, and because it would involve the disclosure of the internal operations of several trade unions, I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would withdraw his motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to co-operate with the Minister, and I understand something of the requirements of secrecy; but in view of the fact that a daily newspaper, the Toronto Star, printed a page or more on which they were able to produce the actual records, with the co-operation of the Department of Labour; and since I do not believe -the Minister shakes his head, but the newspaper printed an editorial in which it substantiated that statement-that Members of Parliament are second class citizens as compared with Liberal newspapers, I would respectfully request that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion transferred for debate.



DOCUMENTS RESPECTING QUEBEC-FRANCE EDUCATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Martineau:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all briefs, agreements, letters and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Govrnment of the Republic of France in connection with the agreement between France and the Province of Quebec providing for the exchange of teachers and other educational material.
Mr. Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 17, in the name of the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue (Mr. Martineau), is now called.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this motion is somewhat analogous to motion No. 1. The papers in question may be divided into, first, an exchange of notes between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Charge d'Affaires of the French Embassy in Ottawa, dated February 27 this year, formalizing the agreement by which the Canadian Government gave its approval to the educational entente which by prearrangement was signed in Paris on that same day; and the correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of France in connection with the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of this agreement.
I think the hon. gentleman is well aware that in accordance with diplomatic usage, correspondence leading to the negotiation of an agreement is normally privileged and
Motions for Papers
normally would not be produced. If, however, the hon. gentleman would be prepared to modify his motion to call for the production of the exchange of letters between the Charge d'Affaires of the French Embassy and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the entente itself, and would omit the requirement for the privileged correspondence, I would be prepared, with leave, to table these documents now.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to agree to the minister's suggestion so long as it is understood that the agreement itself and the exchange of notes can be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation as expressed by the Minister, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Groos:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all papers and service records of John Lawson Hamilton, PF 20059 P.P.C.L.I., since June 12, 1919.
Mr. Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 20, in the name of the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) is now called.


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a conversation with the hon. Member and explained to him the departmental policy vis-a-vis the confidential nature of the files of veterans. I believe he is ready to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Groos:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.i



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to point out that on March 10, 1965, there was an order of the house for the production of certain papers exchanged between the Quebec minister of agriculture and the federal Minister of Agriculture. Those papers have not yet been tabled. Could the minister tell us who objects to the tabling of those papers?
May 5, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. Member that he rephrase his question and put it on orders of the day.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to inform the House in regard to the situation in the Dominican Republic and, on the basis of the information that he has, whether he agrees with the words of President Johnson, who states that what the rebels have in mind is-and I quote-"the establishment of another Communist government in the western hemisphere". Will the Prime Minister say, on the basis of the examination that has been made and the information available, whether Canada has communicated with the United States in this regard, and would he advise whether, under the circumstances, the Government of Canada would not proceed with an early recognition of whatever government comes into office?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no additional information to enable me to make any comment of any great value on the observations of the President of the United States which have been referred to by my right hon. friend, and I would prefer not to comment on that statement at this time. There has been no request made by the Colonel, who I believe has been appointed President of the Dominican Republic, for recognition of that government.


Mr. Siuarl A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I would direct to the Prime Minister. Now that the United States is well established on the island, during their period of occupation do they intend to take an equivalent interest in the non-Communist government of Haiti?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that. I have no reason to believe that United States intervention in the Dominican Republic has any relation whatever to any possible action in the neighbouring country.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the

Prime Minister, or perhaps it might be better to direct it to whichever Minister is acting as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Security Council of the United Nations is presently meeting in New York to discuss the difficulties in the Dominican Republic, and in view of the action this morning of the government of France, as represented on the Council, France being an ally of Canada and the United States, what instructions have been given to the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations in his diplomatic dealings in the corridors-these activities, as the Prime Minister knows, go on during these events-and what action is being taken by the Canadian delegation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, Canada is not a member of the Security Council, which is considering this matter at the present time. The instructions to the Ambassador for Canada at the United Nations are to follow these discussions very carefully and to report to the Government, and he is doing that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Has the position of the Canadian Government with regard to the difficulties in the Dominican Republic been made known to our Ambassador in New York? If so, has he instructions to communicate the position of the Canadian Government to other delegations at the United Nations?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Ambassador knows the position we have been taking on this matter which has been disclosed to the House of Commons, and which is to guide him in discussions with other delegations at the United Nations.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the Canadian Government's position so far as the Dominican Republic is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope that peace, security and stability will soon be returned to that country under a government of its own choosing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the Canadian Government support the United States Government in their position in the Dominican Republic?



TANZANIA-SUPPLY OF ARMS TO AFRICAN STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I should like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary they paid out $7,000 last year.']
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary
May 5, 1965

of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Sir Roy Welensky in a recent speech in British Columbia was reported as saying that Tanzania is and likely will continue to be the main outlet for Communist arms and propaganda to the Congo and other African states. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that this is not the case, and that arms and materials supplied by Canada to Tanzania will not be used for these purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question, which I received at lunch time.
The statement to which the hon. Member refers was presumably one made a month or so ago when Sir Roy Welensky was in Vancouver and perhaps also Victoria. Since that time the military situation in the Congo has changed decidedly in favour of the central government, and the rebel movement has split. While perhaps neighbouring African countries had been helping the rebels by permitting the shipment of arms through their territories, this movement has now, we are informed, largely ceased. The central government now has control of nearly all the borders of the Congo through which arms were being shipped.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister did not get the gist of my question, that is whether the Canadian Government is satisfied that Tanzania is not trans-shipping materials to other African countries for Communist purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no knowledge, Mr. Speaker, of any arms being shipped across the border from Tanzania into the Congo.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Bailie River-
Camrose): Can the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us if Mrs. Lucien Rivard has been granted a passport? He told me some time ago he would give me an answer today, and I was wondering if I could get that answer?
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: An application for a passport was made by Mrs. Rivard on April 6. Its issue is still under consideration.


Mr. Smallwood:: What was the reason for the delay?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is under consideration.


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the press reports to the effect that negotiations are going on between Canada and France for long term contracts for the sale of about 50,000 tons of Canadian uranium are correct. Most hon. Members will be very pleased if Canada is to get a long term contract of this nature. However, I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the press reports indicate that the negotiations are being carried on by Denison Mines Limited, whether he can tell the House if it is the Government's intention to pursue the policy of having all sales of uranium handled through a Government agency, which I believe in this case would be Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members know, a Canadian mining company has been negotiating with the French atomic energy authorities for the sale of a large amount of uranium. The Canadian Government is not, of course, a party to commercial contract negotiations of this kind. However, the Government is necessarily involved in any sale of uranium to a foreign country, due to its responsibility for licensing the export of nuclear material and to certain international obligations that Canada has undertaken in regard to atomic energy and nuclear materials. Therefore we have been in touch with the French government in regard to these negotiations.
I think in this regard that ministerial discussions are desirable. We are discussing the possibility of initiating such discussions in the near future and arrangements are being made to that end. As I have previously indicated in the House, there are a number of complex issues still to be considered and it would not be appropriate to speculate on the prospects of an early conclusion to the negotiations which are under way. I can, however, say that we hope that it will be possible to find a mutually acceptable basis on which these negotiations can go forward to a successful conclusion. No matter what the outcome may be, the Government regards the maintenance of this vital Canadian industry at about its present level of production as of primary importance.

May 5, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that France is not a signatory to the partial nuclear test ban agreement, can the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that before any contract is signed for the sale of uranium to France the proper precautions will be taken to see that there is inspection and control, so that this uranium cannot be used for other than peaceful purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House, and I am happy to repeat it, that certain international commitments with regard' to the sale of uranium have been undertaken by the Canadian Government- both this Government and the previous Government-and we propose to observe those commitments.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Supposing that this sales contract concerning the sale of Canadian uranium be agreed upon between France and Canada, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell this house if it will assist in reopening the mines located in the district of Elliot Lake, in the riding of the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to await, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the contract with the company, and it would depend on the details of that contract; but it would be a major purpose of the negotiations which are under way to increase production of uranium.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: supplementary question. In today's issue of the Globe and Mail it was stated that Elliot Lake, in the riding of the Prime Minister, would be saved by the uranium oxide sale. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he and the Government would take steps to ensure that the recently closed uranium mines in the Bancroft area will also share in the proposed $700 million sale to France, thereby also ensuring the saving of the town of Bancroft?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I see it, it is not a question of saving Elliot Lake, because Elliot Lake is not lost. But I am quite aware of the situation in Bancroft and the difficulties the people there have been going through in this regard, and naturally this will be very much in our minds.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: A supplementary question. I would remind the Prime Minister that due to the action of this Government, Bancroft is lost.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question to one asked previously, Mr. Speaker. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister deal with the details of the possible sale of uranium to France and making certain that it would be used for peaceful purposes, if I understood the implication. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that if the Canadian Government sells uranium to France this will not permit the French Government to use imports of uranium from other countries for nuclear purposes?


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Is it true that Ontario teachers have not applied for social insurance numbers because the Ontario Teachers' Federation has decided against it? Is it also true that no Ontario school board has been charged under the same Department of Labour regulation compelling an employer to require his employees to obtain social security numbers, which is now being enforced in the case of the Crown v. Daniel E. Woodward, the publisher of Canada Month magazine?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been called away on an important engagement but I will be glad to bring this question to his attention.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture; although he has just left the House, I am going to state it just the same so as to put it on record.
Could he tell us why he cannot table the papers which I asked him in a notice of
May 5, 1965

motion for the production of papers under date of March 10 last?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister left he asked me to advise the hon. Member that this matter was being checked closely and that he would have a report for the hon. Member within a day or two.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the Minister state if the Government is considering removing discriminatory measures affecting the potash industry in Saskatchewan which preclude it from availing itself of the provisions and concessions available to other types of mining development?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under discussion and I can assure my hon. friend that I will reply to him in a day or two.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received representations on this subject particularly from the Saskatchewan Government?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


CHURCHILL FALLS-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING TRANSMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he advise the House what was the result of the discussions he held with Premier Smallwood and Premier Lesage on the subject of the transmission of electric power from Churchill Falls, and whether he feels his efforts as an honest broker have been satisfactory?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy indeed to be an honest broker in this matter, but my own recent experience shows it is not an easy assignment.
22620-61)
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, honest broker or otherwise, did the Prime Minister agree with the position of the Premier of Quebec in respect of the interprovincial transmission of power, or the transmission of power from one Province to a foreign country over the territory of another Province? What did the Prime Minister say in this regard? Does the Prime Minister not agree that interprovincial trade cannot be interfered with by a Provincial Government, or what view did the Prime Minister express during the brokering discussions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was no question of interference with interprovincial trade in any talks I had. The practice of the Provincial Governments and the Federal Government in this matter is governed by law and convention, as I am sure is well known to my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it does not appear to be known to the two Premiers, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister will tell us what that long established convention is? Is the Lesage view correct, or is the Smallwood version correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any fundamental distinction between the two views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware of any false statements made by Premier Smallwood in respect of the Churchill Falls development?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my attention was diverted and I did not catch the transfer of the answer from the Minister of Transport to the Prime Minister. I tried to pick up the transfer but failed. Would the Minister of Transport tell us what the answer he gave to the Prime Minister was?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The matter is not within my jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer was "certainly not".

May 5. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Since reports indicate that Premier Lesage referred to comments by Premier Smallwood in respect of the Churchill Falls development as false, can the Prime Minister indicate whether Premier Lesage and Premier Smallwood have cleared up these charges of false statements?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think I should be asked to comment on press reports concerning what one Provincial Premier is reported to have said about another.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Prime Minister, rather than have any disturbance between the Premiers of these two provinces, if he would not indicate to Premier Smallwood that this line could probably go through the Atlantic Provinces?


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF CLERK ASSISTANT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the retirement of the clerk assistant of the House of Commons, Mr. Montgomery, this position has remained vacant. Could the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to make this appointment so as to enable the person who will fill it to acquire the necessary experience?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the appointment to this important post will be announced very shortly.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice concerning the conversation he had with the premier of the province of Quebec night before last.
Did Mr. Lesage inform him when the Quebec government will bring before the

Quebec legislature the Fulton-Favreau formula concerning the repatriation of our constitution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any conversation between a minister of the crown and the premier of a province can be the subject of a question in this house, unless the minister thinks there are special reasons to answer it.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with relation to his conversations with Premier Lesage of the Province of Quebec the night before last? Did the Premier of the Province of Quebec inform the Prime Minister when the Government of Quebec intended to present the Fulton-Favreau formula before the Quebec legislature? If not, did the Prime Minister ask the Premier when they intended to present this resolution for the repatriation of the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This, of course, is a matter for the Government of the Province of Quebec to decide and they have not made us aware of their decision.


William Heward Grafftey: Did the Prime Minister ask the Premier when they were going to proceed with this matter, in view of the fact that nine other provinces have approved the formula?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) was present at the Prime Minister's little dinner at Sussex Street the other night?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member should not be so curious about my dinner guests.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Some weeks ago I asked if he could give us a progress report on the work of the Special Committee set up to inquire into the economic, social and political effects on the rest of Canada if the Province of Quebec becomes separated. Now that more than two months have passed since I asked the question, I
May 5, 1965

wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to give us a report? Has he received a report from this Committee, and if so will it be made public?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give the hon. Member an interim report on the work of this Committee later this week. I am sorry I have been so long in getting it ready.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: May I ask
a supplementary question? Will the Prime Minister also give us the names and the number of officials engaged in this inquiry, and whether they are working part time or full time, as well as something of the terms of reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a Committee of
officials. If my hon. friend will put the question on the Order Paper I will try to get the information.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to question No. 81 which was answered. I am informed that the post office mail box pick-up contract has been taken away from a widow with two children and handed over to the past president of the local Liberal Association. In a naive manner the reply states there is no record of representations in this record. Can the Prime Minister say whether Canadians must now be prepared to accept these underhanded tactics as a matter of course under his Government?


Mr. Fisher:: Typical Liberal Party tactics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid I am not aware of what took place in connection with this matter.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he give us the reasons for the plan to sell the St. Hubert military airport in Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I shall bring that matter to the
attention of the minister.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us why the federal government turns down winter works extension projects in municipalities of the province of Quebec when such projects have been accepted by the provincial authorities under the joint winter works program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to discuss this matter with the Minister of Labour and perhaps he will be in a position to reply tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to address this question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could take it. Will the Minister use his influence to have the Owen Sound fall fair, now a "B" status fair, raised to the "A" rating for which it fully qualifies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, it seems to me that this being a serious question, the reply should be given through the Order Paper.


Percy Verner Noble: But, Mr. Speaker, people would like to make plans to get grants for this fair, and they would like to know what their chances are.


Bruce Silas Beer: I wish to thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his question. I have checked with the departmental officials and am advised that the total amount of eligible prize money paid out by the Owen Sound Agricultural Society in each of the last three years on the specified classes was not sufficient to qualify this exhibition

May 5, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry for class "A" listing. Under the regulations a fair must have paid out prize money on specified classes of not less than $6,000 in each of the three preceding years to become eligible for class "A" listing.
I am pleased to note that the prize money paid out by the Owen Sound Agricultural Society on the specified classes is increasing annually and I would hope that they will be soon in a position to qualify for class "A" listing.


Percy Verner Noble: I should like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary they paid out $7,000 last year.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State for External Affairs make any representations to the United States government or to the court in Hartford, Connecticut, in connection with the trial and conviction of one John C. Doyle, Chairman of Canadian Javelin Limited?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly, I have not. I will have to look into the others, but I have no knowledge of other representations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this supplementary question, too? In connection with reported intercession on Mr. Doyle's behalf made by Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland, did the Canadian Government in any way assist or participate in this intercession?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just said I have not made any such intervention of any kind.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: On Thursday last the Prime Minister undertook to give me an answer shortly in relation to the involvement of the Federal Government in the bankruptcy of the Walsh Advertising Company Limited of Toronto. I wonder if he can give that now?


Guy Favreau: The Prime Minister referred the question to me. I had a partial answer submitted to me

but I wanted to check certain of the facts. I should like also to obtain additional facts from the Department of National Defence. If the hon. Member will have patience with me, I will be in a position to answer some time this week.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, I am prepared to be patient.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
This afternoon I received an answer to question No. 213 I had directed to the Secretary of State, with respect to broadcasting in British Columbia.
I asked the Secretary of State whether he had received a petition from some 10,000 French Canadians from British Columbia, in 1961, what had been done with the petition and what had become of it, why had no action been taken in that connection and, especially, why would French Canadians not have the same rights in British Columbia as English speaking Canadians have in Rouyn, Val d'Or, Montreal, Chicoutimi, Quebec and other towns.
In his reply the Secretary of State said that the estimated costs on a per capita basis, that is per French Canadian in British Columbia, were considerably higher than the costs estimated for several other areas also without service at the time, and the corporation stressed that the provision of French language stations in British Columbia could be considered only after the areas with a lower cost per capita had been served.
For the last three months the answer has always been that the Fowler commission appointed by the government is now considering the problem and when it submits its reports, etc.
Mr. Speaker, we always get the same answer to our questions. Is it more expensive per capita in British Columbia to give a French service to the French Canadians who are there than to give us Spanish, Italian or Russian in Canada, paid by the C.B.C. to go and get artists in the field of television and radio in those countries?
I see here my excellent friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who comes from British Columbia and I am convinced that he will agree with me that it would be fair to put the French Canadians of British
May 5. 1965

Columbia on the same footing as his English speaking compatriots in our own areas, and that it would not cost more to the government to give a service in British Columbia than what it costs to give it in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we are fed up with those answers to the effect that it is the Fowler commission which will decide. Does the government have, yes or no, a definite policy to serve in those areas the groups which make up Canada?
That is what I would like to know from the Secretary of State.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the Fowler commission which will make a decision on this matter. It is the government which will make it; however, we have asked the Fowler commission to consider this problem and seek to set priorities in this field of government expenditures.
The government will not make an immediate decision, because it would not be wise not to wait for the recommendations of the Fowler commission.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, on taking part in this budget debate I would like, after making a few comments on the budget itself, to move on to deal at some length with the agricultural sector of Canada's economy to discuss for a few minutes how that sector fared in previous years, and relate its problems today, and offer some suggestions as to how we might be able to allow this very important sector of our society to share more equitably in Canada's present affluent economy.
In so far as the budget itself is concerned I am of the opinion that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should be commended for his stewardship of Canada's financial and economic affairs since he took office two years ago, and I am happy to do so at this time.
In those two years Canada has moved from a position of high budgetary deficits, sluggish
The Budget-Mr. Honey economy and high unemployment into an era where the budget was within $83 million of being in balance last year. Our economy is moving ahead at an unprecedented rate and, subject to persistent regional pockets of unemployment, our people are now fully employed and are enjoying the affluence of a booming economy in a way which makes Canada the envy of the rest of the world.
Of course there has been criticism on the budget, and that was to be expected. From some of our friends in the Opposition there has been the criticism that the tax cuts were not sufficient. From other of our friends in the Opposition there was the criticism that sufficient tax benefits were not passed on to business and industry.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that a government must act responsibly, and must govern its actions by the circumstances in which it takes action. I believe, for example, that it would have been irresponsible to make tax cuts which would have the effect of creating a large budgetary deficit. I believe, further, that the Canadian people are the ones who should benefit from an economy which permits dividends to be paid by way of tax cuts. These tax reductions will of course create increased consumer purchasing power, which will in turn stimulate demand. Industry and business are going to benefit directly from this increased demand, and I for one am among those who feel that any benefit coming their way should be passed to the Canadian taxpayer. It is good that business and industry will benefit coincidentally and the net effect on the Canadian economy will be beneficial.
I mentioned in my introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to devote most of the time allotted to me to a discussion of the problems of a group of people who are not benefiting from the generally excellent condition of the Canadian economy. I refer to the farmers of Canada; and because my knowledge, such as it is, is greater in this field, and because I represent an Eastern riding, I want to refer specifically to the problems of the farmers of Eastern Canada,
The first report of the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that the main purpose of the report is to examine the problem of achieving simultaneously and consistently certain basic economic and social goals in the Canadian economy in the medium-term future, specifically over the next five years to 1970. These goals were enumerated as: full employment; a high rate of economic growth;

May 5, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Honey reasonable stability of prices; a viable balance of payments, and an equitable distribution of income.
From a study of the recent budget papers and the Minister's speech, I think we could reasonably conclude that the Canadian economy is performing admirably on the first four items of the Economic Council's goals and, further, that the medium range future for achievement of the goals set by the Council by 1970 seems remarkably good for those first four goals.
In respect to the last or fifth goal, namely an equitable distribution of income, I think we are very much in trouble, both at the present time and for the period to 1970, unless something more is achieved to bring the agricultural sector of the economy up to a par with other groups.
In our present affluent society the relative position of the farmer is a shocking one, and I could not describe it any better than to quote a paragraph from the staff study prepared for the Economic Council of Canada by Mr. John Dawson, entitled, "Changes in Agriculture to 1970", where he makes the following statement at page 22:
By 1963 farmers' Income were 54 per cent above the 1949 level, while income of wages and salary workers elsewhere in the economy had increased by 94 per cent. Measured in constant 1949 dollars, income in agriculture had increased by 13 per cent while incomes in non-agricultural occupations had increased by 46 per cent. If an allowance for a return on capital was deducted from farmers' incomes, the increase in current dollars was 21 per cent, and in constant dollars there was a decline of about 10 per cent.
It is only proper, of course, that an allowance for a return on capital should be taken into account when comparing farmers' incomes with those of other sectors of the economy. After all, that is only recognized and accepted business accounting practice followed everywhere in Canada. And after making that allowance we find that measured in constant 1949 dollars income in non-agriculture occupations rose by 46 per cent between 1949 and 1963, and the farmers' income actually declined by 10 per cent in the same period, a shocking discrepancy of 56 per cent in that 14 year period.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do about it? Surely it is the challenge of the government and of each and every Member sitting in this House, to see that some immediate assistance is given to this unfortunate sector of our economy. I want to say now that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays)

and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who is responsible for ARDA and eastern feed grain policy have before them a task not given to any easy solution. The problems confronting agriculture in Canada today are such as call for bold and imaginative steps. The problems call for whole new concepts and philosophies in order to achieve a long range solution and, in addition, some interim short range immediate steps to prevent many Eastern farmers from losing their farms, and enable them to be immediately in a position to provide a proper education and a decent and acceptable standard of living for their families, which is the right of every Canadian family today.
Many Eastern farmers today are existing only on the depreciation allowance on their capital investment. They are going deeper and deeper into debt; they are plagued with worries about their inability to retire their debts.
I think the easier farm credit policy of this Government has been helpful and beneficial to many farmers, but I hasten to add that it has its limitations. It helps the farmer to increase his efficiency of operation and to develop an economical farm unit. Unfortunately, the easier credit policy can only be helpful if the long range credit program can be related to an assurance by the farmer that he will receive fair prices for his production which will in turn permit him to retire his debt in an orderly fashion.
I talked last week end to a farmer who is an excellent farmer on a viable, economic farm unit. Four years ago he obtained a Farm Credit Corporation loan to construct a new barn so he could handle a larger hog raising operation more efficiently. Last year he obtained a farm improvement loan to enable him to buy machinery with which to grow more grain to provide for his more efficient hog operation. Today this man is at a loss. He is producing more hogs in a more efficient manner; he is growing more grain more efficiently and economically. The fly in the ointment is that he cannot get enough return from the sale of his hogs to meet his payments under the Farm Credit Corporation loan and his farm improvement loan.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that farmers in Eastern Canada are using credit as a substitute for earned income because of inadequate farm prices. This situation cannot continue indefinitely and we know it can only end in disaster for the farmer, if he does not obtain higher prices for his
May 5, 1965

produce with which to meet his mortgage payments.
It was recently pointed out by Mr. George R. McLaughlin of the Dairy Farmers of Canada that from Canada's national budget slightly more than 2 per cent is spent on agriculture, and this includes the expense of maintaining the Canada Department of Agriculture with all its research facilities, and annual support for agriculture in one way or another. The average spent on agriculture in the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden and Finland is slightly over 8 per cent.
The Canadian people, as Mr. McLaughlin said, eat more cheaply than any other people in the world. In Canada 21 cents of every wage dollar is required to cover the food budget. In the United States 22 cents of every wage dollar is spent on food; in the United Kingdom 39 cents and in Russia 50 cents.
It is the duty of the farmers, of course, to polish their public image, and to satisfy the people of Canada-as I personally believe is the case-that they are not asking for more than that to which they are fairly entitled. I believe this is important because it is my opinion that the Canadian people as a whole would not consciously want the farmer to remain the poor relation of the Canadian family.
And why should the Canadian farmer be singled out as the poor relation of the Canadian family? Minimum labour standards, tariffs and tax incentives benefit workers and industry. These things are fair and reasonable and I do not quarrel with them. My point is that it is fair and reasonable also that farmers should have a comparable income that is fair and reasonable.
As I see it, the responsibilities of Government to agriculture in these circumstances can be divided into those of a long term nature and those of a short term nature. In so far as the long term responsibilities are concerned, I believe this Government has taken some effective steps which will be of material assistance to the farm economy in due course. I have in mind such policies as the increase in farm credit, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act, the revised crop insurance program, the announcement of the establishment of a National Dairy Commission and the improvements in the marketing and handling of feed grains in Eastern Canada and British Columbia. The Agriculture and Colo-22620-62
The Budget-Mr. Honey nization Committee, which I had the honour to Chair, carried out a very important inquiry into the matter of feed grain, and I would like to pay tribute to members of that committee from all parties who worked so conscientiously and with such good results.
The most important single long term policy, in my opinion, must be the establishment of national marketing boards or agencies. When I had the privilege of speaking in the Throne Speech debate last year I urged the Government to speedily implement the establishment of marketing boards or co-operatives on a national basis. I quite appreciate, as I pointed out at the time, that the implementation of this policy involves constitutional problems, but I think it is important we should move forward as quickly as we can in this area.
This Parliament can enact legislation permitting the establishment of marketing agencies dealing in international and interprovincial trade. The concurrence of the Provinces is of course necessary to permit such boards to handle marketing within the Province. The new National Dairy Commission announced by the Minister of Agriculture is a step in the right direction. I urge him and his colleagues in the Government to move as expeditiously as possible to the establishment of such national marketing agencies for other agriculture commodities.
It seems to me that it is absolutely essential for the farmer to have at his disposal a means whereby he can be master of those things he markets. To do this requires a degree of initiative and co-operation on the part of the farmer-a degree of initiative and cooperation which I know the farmer will assume.
National marketing agencies will give the producers some say in the prices they should receive for the things they market. These marketing agencies, to be effective, must be on a national scale, because it will not serve any useful purpose to have one provincial board offer produce at one price and have another provincial board offer the same produce at another price.
We have heard a great deal about the cost-price squeeze in agriculture. This is the reason why the farmers' net income has declined so dramatically. Today the farmer has no say about the price he will receive for the commodities he offers for sale. A price is offered to him and he can take that price or leave it. He has no real choice; he must take that price or let his produce rot.

May 5, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Honey
Today the situation has progressed to the point where the packing houses, which tell the farmer at what price they will buy his produce, do not in many cases have control of the price at which they will sell the processed products. Today the large chain stores are telling the packing plants the price at which they will buy the processed products.
The consumer who buys a meat product at his retail store today pays substantially less than 50 cents on every $1 to the farmer who produced the meat. The balance, well over 50 cents on every dollar, goes to those who handle, process and sell the meat after it leaves the farmer's hands. Surely this situation cannot be allowed to continue and it seems to me that the answer, as I have already suggested, is orderly marketing through national agencies.
I do not say that such marketing boards should get into the processing business, although they might find it advisable to do so. On the other hand the marketing boards might call on the packing houses, canning factories and other processors to submit tenders setting out the price at which they would be prepared to process the produce of the board.
If national boards such as I am proposing met united buyers' resistance in the bargaining process during their first few years of life, the Government should be prepared to step in and back up the board with financial assistance. I restrict this suggestion to the first few years because I believe that in due course the boards should be self-financing and autonomous agencies.
My suggestion as to the necessity of Government assistance is to guard against any united attempt on the part of the processors or retailers groups to break the board in its infancy by refusing to bargain with it in a realistic and fair manner.
Today the farmer pays the price asked for his machinery, his labour, his repairs, his hydro, his gasoline, his dentist bills, his groceries and so on. And this is the way it should be-I make no complaint about that. But the farmer has no say in the price he will receive for his produce when he puts it on the market. This is the crux of the unfair position and the reason the farmer is being squeezed out of business, the reason why in many cases he is unable to educate and provide for his family as the urban family is provided for.
The farmer is increasingly efficient; he is increasingly productive, and the consumer is getting the benefit of these things. But

month by month more farmers are being pushed to the brink of insolvency. Surely the consumer does not want to see the agriculture community change to the extent that all agriculture commodities are produced by large corporate farmers. In such circumstances, what chance would the consumer then have to buy food at reasonable cost?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In concluding my remarks I want to emphasize the necessity for some action at once, this month, this week, tomorrow, as quickly as possible, to enable these farmers of whom I have been speaking to get through the interim period until the long range policies implemented by this Government-and I said they are good policies-have time to be effective to raise the farm income to a fair and reasonable level. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has already set out the objectives of a national agricultural policy, namely to raise the net farm income, after an allowance for investment on capital, to a point where it equals the earnings of Canadians working in urban areas.
I want to emphasize the absolute urgency of implementing the portion of the recent Throne Speech which states that Parliament will be asked to consider measures of special assistance to the family farm in both Eastern and Western Canada. These measures of special assistance must operate to immediately bolster up the farm income. In my opinion, they should best be achieved by supplementary payments to the producers, up to a certain maximum level of production on his produce as he markets it. This maximum level of production, or ceiling, would guard against overproduction and would permit the basic units of production which are now being produced to return a fair and reasonable price to the farmer. There is, of course, a precedent for supplementary payments such as I have suggested, and this precedent has been established in the recently announced dairy policy which will bring the level of manufacturing, or concentrated milk prices up to $3.50 per cwt. This new dairy policy is a good and responsible policy and I congratulate the Minister on it, but I urge that similar supplementary payments be made to the producers of other agricultural products to help them over the very difficult interim period with which the industry is faced.
As I mentioned earlier, these payments would have to be subject to some ceiling as are the payments under the new dairy policy, to guard against surpluses and to
May 5, 1965

give maximum benefit to the family farm and thus guard against an undue benefit to the large corporate producer. With such a two-pronged approach to the problems of the agricultural sector of our economy, it would have an opportunity to take its place with other sectors of the economy in good life which the great majority of Canadians are now enjoying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section (6) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr.	Speaker, I was paired
with the Secretary of State for External	
Affairs. Had I voted, against the motion.	, I would have voted
May 5, 1965

Administration of Justice


Hugh John Flemming: I was
paired with the Minister of Fisheries. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Smith:: I did not vote; I was paired with the Minister of Forestry.


Mr. Fairweather:: I was paired with the hon. Member for Charlotte.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, none of us in the New Democratic Party was paired because we believe this just helps keep the Government in office.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: It being after five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of the Minister of Justice calling a conference of himself and the Attorneys General of the various provinces for the purpose of giving consideration to a scheme to be jointly financed and operated by the Government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces for the provision of legal aid in all criminal cases in which imprisonment is a passible outcome.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), but before proceeding further I should point out that motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Harley) has been called before, and under Standing Order 48 this motion will now go to the end of the list.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, would the House give unanimous consent in order that notice of motion No. 2 may retain its rank on the order paper, 
because obviously the hon. member is absent?
This procedure was agreed upon in the past, and I ask unanimous consent so notice of motion No. 2 may retain its rank.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
1	understand that the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) is asking unanimous consent of the House to let motion No. 2 stand in its place on the Order Paper. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker. We are in the habit of following parliamentary procedure, and in my opinion motion No. 2 must go to the bottom of the list of private member's motions, as has been done in the past and as is the present practice.
The federal government may be interested in this affair, but a few provinces have their own laws. Then let Mr. Harley's motion No.
2	go to the bottom of the list, and let us proceed with motion No. 3. We see no objection to proceeding with motion No. 3, but we object to motion No. 2 remaining at the top of the list of notices of motions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would think that it would be very churlish for hon. members of the House to refuse the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux). Actually the proposer of motion No. 2 is out of the country on behalf of the Special Committee on Food and Drugs, and is on actual House business. I would remind the hon. Member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)-
(Translation)
I would remind the hon. member that, when two of his former colleagues were absent from the house some time ago because they had to represent the Canadian parliament on an international commission, a motion in their name on the order paper was left, at the request of his colleagues, at the same place for weeks, until their return.
So, I think we should show the same courtesy in this case by supporting the request of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) may
May 5, 1965	COMMONS
very well say at this time that my two former colleagues may have thought along those lines, but today we are following parliamentary procedure and the order in which notices of motions should be presented to the house.
If an hon. member is not here to introduce his motion, then he should wait, because it should go to the bottom of the present list of motions. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we have something dealing with hospital insurance and diagnostic services to provide, in agreement with the federal government, for emergency ambulance services, but nevertheless-I hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) say "order, order", but I believe he will not be saying "order" very long and very often in the house-I am opposed to keeping motion No. 2 at the head of the list of notices of motions and I ask that it be placed at the end of the list.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This may boomerang.


Mr. Maurice Rinfrel (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary in the house during the private members' hour, when private bills, public bills or resolutions are introduced by private members, to request, after consultation, that certain bills and notices of motions be allowed to stand. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to abide by this custom in this case and, later on, ask the various house leaders to get together on a new procedure.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to let resolution No. 2 stand where it is now and that we proceed with motion No. 3.


David Réal Caouette: I do not agree at all with the hon. member for St. James on this. If the different house leaders come to an agreement tomorrow on the order to be followed for notices of motions, then we will stop discussing. But, at this time, I formally object to notice of motion No. 2 remaining at the head of the list.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, order.


David Réal Caouette: I object.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. There would appear to be little purpose in continuing this debate as there seems to be no possibility of having unanimous consent. Motion No. 2 will therefore be placed at the bottom of the list-will be dropped.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had thought this discussion might proceed to such a length
DEBATES	969
Administration of Justice that I might be in the unique position of being able to move the motion and talk it out all in one speech, but that would not appear to be the case now. I regret that this private Members' hour, by circumstances beyond the control of the House, is now being reduced to approximately 30 minutes. My colleague, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), said this hour has 40 minutes. I now observe this hour has only 30 minutes. However, I do not wish the brevity of the discussion to take away from the importance of the motion.
Its purpose is to try to provide effective means for granting criminal legal aid in all cases of persons charged with serious crimes. I should only say to hon. Members, in case they seem mildly disinterested in the subject, that no citizen, not even a Member of this House, can be quite sure he may not become interested in the provisions of this motion, and by "interested" I mean personally interested in its provisions.
The motion before the House represents my attempt to sound a blast on Gideon's Trumpet, a blast which I hope will disturb the tranquility which usually descends upon the House at five o'clock. The reference to "Gideon's Trumpet" is because that is the name of a very absorbing book in which a first rate journalist, Anthony Lewis, describes how a very elderly, nondescript prisoner convicted in Florida of breaking and entering- his name was Gideon Wainright-successfully evoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States and obtained from that court a historic declaration of principle.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This principle was that no person accused of a serious offence involving the possible loss of life or liberty could be convicted without an opportunity being offered to him, if necessary by the state itself, to have the assistance of legal counsel in his defence. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States established formally the principle for the whole of the United States that no conviction obtained either in a Federal or in a State court, without the accused being provided with counsel, could be sustained unless the right to counsel had been clearly and unequivocally waived by the accused. The Supreme Court on that occasion made the following statement which I commend to the House:
Reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless

May 5, 1965
Administration of Justice counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defences. That governments hire lawyers to prosecute and defendants, who have the money, hire lawyers to defend, are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials, in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.
Then we go on to quote these words of Mr. Justice Sutherland:
The right to be heard would be in many cases of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence even though he may have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.
It is not good enough simply to provide counsel, as is done under many legal aid schemes in this country, only where there is a plea of guilty. In many instances persons are induced to plead guilty, receiving sentences of varying severity, when they should not have pleaded guilty at all. I could quote both United States and English precedents in this regard but I will limit myself to one reference only. This is what the Public Defender of San Francisco had to say:
Experience has shown that many uninformed and inexperienced persons, without financial means to employ counsel, plead guilty to crimes in order to save time and trouble or to win suspension of sentence. They do not realize that a plea of guilty may ultimately affect their rights and privileges as citizens of the community, even depriving them of employment in certain job categories. This is particulary true of young people appearing for the first time before the courts.

The situation is well put in Gideon's Trumpet where it is stated:
The most innocent man, pressed by the awful solemnities of public accusation and trial, may be incapable of supporting his own cause. He may be utterly unfit to cross-examine the witnesses against him, to point out the contradictions or defects of their testimony, and to counteract it by properly introducing it and applying his own.
This was written by a lawyer in 1825. Incidentally, it is written by a Philadelphia lawyer-I understand this places him in a special category of lawyers. He wrote that in 1825, and it is still true today. In the words of Mr. Lewis:
The sense of loneliness, the confusion of guilt and outrage, the feeling that one is caught up in machinery he does not understand-all these emotions well up in a person who finds himself arrested for even a moderately serious traffic offense.
An accused person today is confronted by increased pressures on every side. Society has responded to those pressures with a proliferation of criminal statutes which fill volumes of law books. Every modern penal code is full of tremendous complexities.
What is the situation in Canada? We have provided by the Criminal Code that everybody in this country is entitled to make a full defence either by himself or by counsel. We have provided in the Bill of Rights certain basic rights which in my view involve the right to have the assistance of counsel. For example, the Bill of Rights provides that no one shall be deprived of life or liberty or the enjoyment of property except by due process of law. It further provides that every law must be interpreted so as not to authorize the abrogation or infringement of any of these rights or deprive the person of the right to retain or instruct counsel or deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of justice in the determination of his rights.
The situation in Canada is that although we have these great pronouncements of principle we lack the machinery necessary to make them operative. It is all very well to say a man has the right to defend himself. It is all very well to say he may hire counsel. But if he does not possess the financial means, and if counsel are not available, he is left with a right which is inoperable and ineffective. The situation varies from province to province. An excellent brief was submitted by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association about a year ago. I think it was submitted to the Department of Justice. They said:
Only a small minority of those accused actually receive legal aid. For example, in the year 1960,
May 5, 1965	COMMONS
there were 181 "Miscellaneous and Criminal" cases granted legal aid in Vancouver. By comparison, there were 5,441 persons charged with indictable offenses in the Province in that year.
Only a small proportion of those accused were represented by counsel. I believe this is typical of the situation. The reason I became interested in this matter is that a constituent of mine, charged with arson, pleaded guilty after giving himself up. No medical examination was made of this man and no counsel appeared on his behalf. There was no presentence report. He was given a sentence, as I recall it, of 16 years in the penitentiary for this offence. As a result I became interested in this subject.
I appreciate we do not have time to examine this question in detail. I anticipate it may be said by the representatives of the administration, and of the Department of Justice as well as by others in this House, that this matter of legal aid is, under our constitutional system, a responsibility of the Provinces. However, it seems to me that here, as in so many other instances, there is an overlapping responsibility. If the Bill of Rights solemnly declares that all Canadians are entitled to certain rights, there is surely some responsibility resting on Parliament to ensure that these rights are available across Canada. While it is true that under the British North America Act the administration of justice is entrusted to the Provincial Legislatures, criminal procedure is, under section 91, a responsibility of this Parliament, and it is very difficult to distinguish criminal procedure from the administration of justice. I concede that schemes of legal aid dealing with those involved in the criminal law should be integrated with schemes of legal aid that cover civil cases as well; and it is quite obvious that any legislation dealing with this matter should be administered by Provincial authorities. Indeed, in the Province of Ontario a committee has recently reported on this subject, and I believe the Government has promised to bring in legislation providing for legal aid, not only in criminal cases but also covering certain civil cases.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is therefore desirable that any scheme of legal aid that is evolved in connection with criminal proceedings should be integrated into Provincial schemes and should be fitted to the situation that exists in each one of the Provinces where the Bar is organized Provincially and where different
DEBATES	971
Administration of Justice circumstances prevail. But it is my submission, Mr. Speaker, and I urge this upon the House, that this is a case where there is responsibility resting on both jurisdictions, and it is for this reason that I have recommended in this resolution that the Government should consider the advisability of a conference among the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the Attorneys General of the Provinces in order that they may work out a scheme, jointly financed and jointly operated by the Government of Canada and the Governments of the various Provinces, so as to ensure that legal aid be in fact provided in all criminal cases in which imprisonment is a possible outcome, and where the accused person is not able to look after his own particular needs.
This may seem to some people rather less important than the provision of medical services universally, and I would be the first to agree that medical services are far more of a necessity. But I do want to suggest that those who are caught up in the toils of the criminal law ought to have the provision of adequate legal services, which is no longer a luxury but has become a very real necessity in our society. This view has been clearly propounded by the highest courts of the United States; it has been recognized by the law in England and many other jurisdictions, and I see no reason in the world why this Government and this Parliament should not give a lead by organizing effective legal aid throughout Canada and offering to assist financially legal aid schemes to be put into effect in all the Provinces across Canada. This is a matter, as I say, of primarily Provincial jurisdiction; but it is a joint responsibility. The Bill of Rights of this House will remain in some respects meaningless, and the provisions that we have put into the Criminal Code to provide a full and fair opportunity to defend oneself against an accusation of crime will be inadequate until something of this sort is done.
Private Members' hour is sometimes very unproductive, but I hope the introduction of this subject will ensure that the Government of Canada, and particularly the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice will look very seriously into the necessity for giving a lead in this matter. Too seldom we have an effective lead given in important social reforms of this sort. Some people have said this is a measure that would aid lawyers. I do not think it is intended to aid lawyers at all, and I do not think the lawyers I know

May 5, 1965
Administration of Justice need any aid at the present time. This is, however, a Bill to make the necessary services available to people who are in trouble, and there are many, many of them in every constituency in Canada. Although this is a short and truncated period, I hope we have started something that will eventually result in some positive action to help in a field in which we all have a primary and very real responsibility to give leadership.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my remarks I wish to highly commend the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for introducing this measure. Certainly the rights of the individual is something that affects us all and it is something of which we must always be aware and should see that at all times wherever possible-and we must make it possible- every accused person has the right to legal counsel. I also wish to commend the Government for having announced, as they did in the Throne Speech, the setting up of a Special Committee on Correction, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) for having announced the make-up of that Committee this week. The Vice Chairman is the renowned Toronto criminal lawyer, Mr. G. Arthur Martin. This Committee will be dealing, I hope, with matters such as this raised today by the hon. Member for Greenwood.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the provision of a lawyer, or legal aid-whatever you want to call it-is essential right from the time an accused person is arrested. Quite often an accused person does not have a lawyer and does not know how to go about making an application for bail. Very often this results in too high a bail being set, and all the factors that should be taken into consideration on the accused's behalf are not taken into consideration. I believe it was Jefferson who said there should be "equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion." But I am sure there cannot be any equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. All too often accused people are denied bail, or bail is set at too high a level and they are kept in prison awaiting trial, whereas the man with means is able to get bail set and be at liberty pending his trial.
Surely this is not something with which any of us can agree, namely this type of situation where the wealthy man can get his liberty and in many cases the poor man cannot. Bail is set to ensure the attendance of accused persons at their trial, and legal as-

sistance before trial to advise the accused with regard to his rights and how to present his application for bail is very vital to that accused person. All too often-although it happens very seldom in the area of Ontario from which I come-the accused person is unable to raise the $200, $300 or $400 bail and has to remain incarcerated awaiting his trial for some two or three weeks, whereas with regard to some types of offence perhaps 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 75 per cent of the people have no problem whatever in raising the money necessary for bail.
With regard to the provision of legal aid and bail, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the Manhattan Bail Project, conducted by the Vera Foundation in the state courts of New York in conjunction with the New York University Law School and the Institute of Judicial Administration. The procedures there employed are essentially simple. This report says:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Adult prisoners brought to the Magistrates' Felony Court are interviewed by a group of law students from the evening division of New York University. Information is obtained on a variety of factors relevant to the prisoner's eligibility for pre-trial release, including his place of residence, employment, relatives living in New York City, criminal record, and period of residence in the city. With the prisoner's consent, his statements are verified principally by phone but occasionally by sending a student into the field for further investigation. Cases are identified in which the information collected suggests that the accused may safely be released without requiring-
-bail. It is interesting to note that of the first 200 cases of pre-trial liberty, as they call it down there, which means in fact released on your own recognizance by signing a bond and then putting up cash bail, only two accused failed to appear at trial.
Another matter which touches on the same question and which goes to the length of time that an accused has to spend in jail-on a capital crime, of course, bail is not allowed-is this. From the lawyer's point of view it is difficult to conduct an effective pre-trial examination and make a complete investigation while the accused is in prison awaiting trial. As I say, in capital cases there is no alternative. However, I would suggest that this committee on corrections could look into the cases of county towns that have only two assizes per year that can deal with capital cases, which means that if an accused is arrested, say one or two weeks after the end of the last assize, he will have to wait five or six months for his trial. There must surely
May 5, 1965

be some way to speed up his trial, and I hope the Committee on Corrections will also take this aspect into account.
Another matter regarding legal aid as proposed by my hon. friend from Greenwood is the fact that poor people who do not have the economic resources to provide their own bail have no alternative but to remain in prison. As I said earlier, it is very difficult to conduct a complete investigation into all the circumstances leading to arrest, which investigation is necessary to enable the lawyer to do his job at the trial. Therefore I believe that more accused should be released on their own recognizances. I believe that a committee should be set up to look into the circumstances of an accused's background, such as where he lives, where he is employed and whether he has any previous criminal record. This is done in the instance of juveniles, but in the case of an adult person awaiting trial no probation officer is available to do this work.
I believe that legal aid should be available to everybody. This is not to say that as of right any government must pay lawyers to conduct legal aid defences. That is not the point. The point, as I see it, is that everyone should have equal justice no matter what are the circumstances. Because if we do not have that, then this society will not exist for very long. Our society must be one in which the law is for both rich and poor; there should not be one law for the rich and one for the poor.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the time on the clock will mean that even if I gurgitate I will nevertheless talk this motion out, which makes me very sorry because it is a most important one. However, owing to the mechanics of the House today this motion will not get the consideration it deserves.
I want to commend the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his motion, at the same time regretting the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who 1 should have thought might be present to hear these few comments. I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for Greenwood about the method he has advocated, of reaching a solution to this problem, but I am wondering why the National Association for the Administration of Justice is not functioning in this regard. Perhaps it is because we are afraid to use the word "national" now. I really do not care what title we give it, but this was an Association under the aegis of the Minister
Administration of Justice of Justice and the Attorneys General of the Provinces, including representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the Provincial Bars. Such matters as, for example, the ridiculous lapse of time before bringing people to trial, which was mentioned by the last speaker, I know were being considered some years ago when I was a member of this committee.
My interest in Gideon's Trumpet-the rather colourful expression used to bring this deficiency to the attention of the public of North America-was aroused by the case of an 11 year old child held in jail, I am sorry to say not only in my Province but in my own constituency, without a charge being laid. This child was there for some five days until the padre who was visiting the jail telephoned me. Parliament happened to be in recess at the time so I was able to go to the jail quite shortly, to be told, I am sorry to say by a member of the R.C.M.P., not to interfere because they were about to break the child. This language will, of course, never be forgotten by me; it will always be a matter of regret. However, I was able to persuade the constable that if he did not release the child to me and have the matter brought before the magistrate it would not be the child who would be broken; and I do not mean by that in any physical sense, of course.
There is, Mr. Speaker, a great need for a public defender. The County of Los Angeles has had such officers for the last 35 years and this procedure could be well copied by Canada. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) will see that this very important motion receives the impetus it deserves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the importance of this question and the fact that it has had only 30 minutes debate, I wonder whether the House would be willing to give unanimous consent that it retain its present position on the Order Paper?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
unanimous opinion of the House that Notice of Motion No. 3 retain its present position on the Order Paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is
agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is in order, but considering the generosity of the House I should
May 5, 1965

Administration of Justice very much like to make some more extended remarks. However, I do not want to butt in on anybody else's time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then adjourn the debate.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Then, Mr. Speaker, I adjourn the debate.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. May 6, 1965