1965-05-19

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement about one of the measures foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne opening this session. The Government undertook to propose grants and loans to assist workers moving to new jobs. This is an important part of our attack on the waste of our human resources which results from inadequate employment opportunities.
The new program will make loans available to anyone who is without work but for whom a job is open beyond commuting distance from his present home. The loans will apply to the costs of moving and of resettling in a new home. They will cover the actual costs of the family's transportation and movement of household effects, plus a resettlement allowance which may be up to $1,000 for a family. For a single person the maximum will be $100 plus the cost of transportation. The repayment period will normally be not more than two years.
The loans will be of great assistance, I believe, in enabling many people to make a new start. But loans are a larger financial obligation than can reasonably be assumed by people who have suffered prolonged unemployment. Therefore grants, instead of loans, will be available to people who have been unemployed for four of the previous six months, or who cannot get a job locally after completing a training course.
For a single man or woman the grant will be limited to actual transportation expenses. A family will be entitled to expenses of transportation and movement of household effects, together with a resettlement grant of up to $400 for a childless couple and up to $1,000 if there are six or more dependants. Grants and loans under this program will be available not only to unemployed wage earners but also to other people, such as farmers, if they are in similar financial circumstances and can obtain employment by moving.
For the purposes of this program Parliament will be asked to approve, in Department of Labour estimates, a $5 million revolving fund for loans and a $5 million appropriation for the cost of grants in this fiscal year.
I would like to emphasize that in addition to its direct benefit to the unemployed, this measure should be of great assistance to industry. We cannot enjoy efficient economic expansion unless people can take advantage of employment opportunities despite the handicaps of distance. For the worker with dependants, those handicaps are very large. The effect of this proposal is that for the first time the doors of opportunity will not be barred to a family just because of where they live. The benefits will be social and economic. They will also be national; we will be helping all Canadians to feel that their community is as broad as Canada itself.
It is not my wish, Mr. Speaker, to exaggerate the importance of this measure. There is much more to do, but this is one item in the first phase of the planned attack on the problems of poverty and inadequate opportunity and as such I believe it is of real significance and will, I hope, be welcomed by the House.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Prime Minister make this announcement it is difficult to focus upon all the aspects and to analyse his complete statement. But it would seem to me off-hand that this is an enlargement, which would encompass all of Canada, of what is now in effect the prerogative of the Minister of Labour, through the Unemployment Insurance Commission, to designate a certain area as labour surplus, with the added provision for transportation of the person involved, plus his family and household effects, to another domicile where a job is available to him through the National Employment Service facilities.
In addition the Prime Minister said there would be grants to those who have been unemployed for four months of a six month period. What puzzles me is that the $1,000 loan is to be repayable within two years. Without giving it too much thought I feel that repayment period is not long enough. I found in my time as Minister of Labour

May 19, 19G5
Labour Conditions
that the Canadian labour force is not as mobile as we would like to see it. From experiences we have had in Springhill and in Windsor as a result of the unemployment situation, it was difficult for one reason or another to get people to move from where they had settled, having put their roots into the ground in a particular community. If they do move they always want to come back, especially to the eastern part of our country.
We will have to look at this program more closely, analyse it, and then express our opinions about it at a later date.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, if the announcement made by the Prime Minister represents a first phase in a co-ordinated manpower policy it is certainly to be welcomed. However, I should like to make two points in reference to this policy statement by the Prime Minister.
The first point is that unless this particular project is part of an over-all co-ordinated manpower program it will have very limited benefits. It seems to me there must be an over-all co-ordinated program which provides for not only the payment of moving expenses, but also supplies information for unemployed persons in respect of employment opportunities and some means of placement or retraining and placement of unemployed persons. The payment of moving expenses represents only part of a very much larger picture, and I hope the Government intends to build around this particular program a complete manpower co-ordinated program, which we so badly need in this country.
The second point I should like to make is that I hope in time the Government will enlarge this program so that it becomes a program of providing grants only, rather than loans and grants. It seems to me there is a false distinction being made when one man who is unemployed as a result of the closing of a plant in a community has an opportunity of a job one month later receives a loan, while another unemployed man in similar circumstances who does not get a chance for a job until four months after he becomes unemployed receives a grant. I do not think any man should have to wait for a certain period of time in order to get a grant if there is an opportunity for him to obtain employment in some part of Canada before that period expires. Grants which are to be made available to assist such an individual and his family in moving should become available at once. I hope the loans

aspect of this program will be dropped and that the Government will move increasingly toward a policy of outright grants to assist in moving and other costs entailed in creating greater mobility of the labour force.
I should like to say that we compliment the Government for having taken this step, and we hope this program will be enlarged into a much more effective manpower program in Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have found the announcement made by the Prime Minister of much interest. Certainly this is one area in which there is a need for emergency assistance and we are happy that the Government has recognized this.
With developing automation and the changing picture of industrial development in the country, one of the greatest problems to be faced involves not only the relocation of people but their retraining. In this regard I note that the announcement represents only the beginning of a very important series of adjustments to be made to meet the changes which take place daily.
Not having received prior notice of this announcement, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to make the subject a debating issue, but it appears from the announcement that the new policy will meet the needs of a large number of people who are in very difficult positions at this time, and I am sure that number will continue to grow. This is an emergency measure intended, I would think, to help those who are not able to help themselves. Therefore its basis would seem to be practical. We will reserve any further comment on this announced program until we have had an opportunity to study it in more detail.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members, at least those who spoke before me, seemed to agree with the new government policy just announced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whereby, in the future, unemployed people moving to another community to work will be able to borrow up to $1,000, in the case of married people, and up to $100, in the case of single people, repayable over a two-year period. This means that the unemployed will run deeper into debt. Instead of a war on poverty this is a war on the poor across the country.
I would have preferred to hear the right hon. Prime Minister announce a policy to
May 19, 1965

assist those who can contribute to the reopening of mining industries, for instance, in designated areas such as in my own area of Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, La Sarre, Malartic, etc., as well as in the riding represented by the right hon. Prime Minister, at Elliot Lake, or those people who can take steps to establish new industries, and not only move people from one place to another.
For instance, in the constituency represented by the Prime Minister, or in my own riding or anywhere else, there are people who have lived in the same place for 15, 20 or 25 years. Now, the government tells them: Gentlemen, as you will not be working here anymore we are lending you $1,000 to move elsewhere.
So, people will have to leave everything they have cherished for years to go and earn their living elsewhere, while it would be possible to create new industries in their own areas thus permitting them to remain, work and earn a decent living in their own community.
That is what we, of the Ralliement
Creditiste, would have liked to hear from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
Under the circumstances this offer will only run the unemployed into greater debt when they are already up to their necks in debts. I say that war is not being waged on poverty but on the poor in Canada who are entitled to a better deal from their federal government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could now get unanimous consent from the House to revert to motions after written questions and motions for papers, so I could then ask for the consent of the House to table a document which is being produced in the Ontario Legislature this afternoon. As that House does not meet until three o'clock and there is an agreed time for release I would not want to anticipate the statement there.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent to this method of proceeding?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	When did the government appoint a special prosecutor in the case of Morris Black and Samuel Ciglen?
2.	What was this special prosecutor's name?
3.	Is he still handling the case and, if not, when was he replaced and why was he replaced?
4.	If there has been a special prosecutor other than the counsel who now has the case in hand, what payments did he receive as of this date and are there any further payments owing to him from the Crown?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Mr. C. L. Dubin, Q.C., January 28, 1958; Mr. H. H. Solway, November 21, 1958, (to assist Mr. Dubin); Mr. Gordon W. Ford, Q.C., February 9, 1961; Mr. J. A. W. Whiteacre, July 18, 1961, (to assist Mr. Ford); Mr. Walter B. Williston, Q.C., November 12, 1963; Mr. Paul A. H. Hess, Q.C., November 12, 1963, (to assist Mr. Williston).
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Mr. H. H. Solway's employment was terminated on July 19, 1960; Mr. C. L. Dubin's employment was terminated on January 9, 1961; Mr. J. A. W. Whiteacre's employment was terminated on August 28, 1962; Mr. G. W. Ford's employment was terminated on November 4, 1963.
Relations between the Government and lawyers employed to conduct Government business, such as reasons for changes in such counsel, are ordinarily considered to be information of a confidential and professional nature, disclosure of which would not be in the public interest.
4.	Mr. Dubin, $9,675, no further payment outstanding; Mr. Solway, $6,583.75, no further payment outstanding; Mr. Ford, $65,115, no further payment outstanding and Mr. Whiteacre, $7,125, no further payment outstanding.


MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Aiken: In connection with minimum security institutions of the penitentiaries branch, by institution (a) what is the cost of maintenance per prisoner (b) what was the percentage rate of escape in the past three years (c) what was the percentage rate of recidivism during existence of each institution?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (a) The cost of maintenance per inmate in minimum security institutions of the Penitentiary Service, by institution, is as follows:
Minimum Security Institutions: Springhill, Nova Scotia, $3,043.42; Valleyfield, Quebec,

May 19, 1965
Questions
$2,338.88; William Head, B.C., $2,702.62. The average for these three institutions is $2,687.99.
Work Camps: Blue Mountain, N.B., $3,635.42; Gatineau, Quebec, $3,511.65; Beaver Creek, Ontario, $2,511.57; Landry Crossing, Ontario, $2,398.96; Agassiz, B.C., $1,792.53; Mountain Prison, B.C., $2,036.65. The average for these work camps is $2,408.54. The average for
Farm Annex (Dorchester Penitentiary) Springhill Institution Blue Mountain Correctional Camp Farm Annex (St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary)
Industrial Annex Valley field Gatineau
Farm Annex (Joyceville Institution) Farm Annex (Collin's Bay Penitentiary) Beaver Creek Landry Crossing
Farm Annex (Manitoba Penitentiary) Farm Annex (Saskatchewan Penitentiary) Agassiz Correctional Camp (British Columbia Penitentiary)
Mountain Prison William Head Institution
(c) The present system of compilation of statistics on penitentiary recividism relates to the number of persons admitted to maximum security institutions directly from the courts.
The inmates of minimum security institutions are not received on direct admission, but on transfer from their parent admitting institutions, therefore, statistics as required in answer to this question are not available.
An improved system of penitentiary statistical reporting is under development and expected to be in operation within the next few months.


BONUS TO BILINGUAL R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the government intend to award any allowance, bonus or increase in salary to bilingual personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, when and of what will it consist?
2.	If no such allowance or bonus is contemplated, for what reason is such not contemplated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The question of awarding an allowance, bonus or in-

minimum security institutions and work camps is $2,515.44.
Statistics for farm camps are not available since these are considered as extensions of the main institutions and that separate records are not kept. These statistics are for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1964.
(b) The percentage rate of escape in the past three years for the minimum security institutions is as follows:
1962-63	1963-64	1964-650.8%	0.2%	1.7%1.5%	2.2%	1.1%Nil	0.27%	0.7%0.8%	Nil	0.3%Nil	Nil	4.3%1.58%	1%	0.45%1.46%	0.77%	0.6%Nil	0.5%	3.0%0.97 %	0.26%	1%0.86%	1.2%	0.39%2.56%	1.67%	1.7%2.56%	0.7%	0.35%Nil	0.28%	Nil0.35%	0.95%	NilNil	Nil	Nil0.3%	1.6%	0.3%
crease in salary to bilingual personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is under consideration.
2. Answered in 1 above.


IMPROVEMENT OF PENITENTIARY FACILITIES
Mr. Maiheson: What is being done at the present time to replace or improve penitentiary buildings and facilities which are considered obsolete by present day standards?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On November 23, 1964, the Minister made a statement in the House on a 10-Year Development Program which had already been approved in principle by the government. This program embraces the improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities and the construction of new institutions.
Outline reconstruction programs have been completed for the Dorchester, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Penitentiaries and the William Head Institution, all of which were built before 1939.
May 19, 1965

A development plan of the St. Vincent de Paul complex of institutions has been completed and provides for the closing of the "bucket cell" wings by the end of this year and for the discontinuance of St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary as a maximum security institution, by 1968, at which time new maximum security facilities will have been built at Ste Anne des Plaines, P.Q.
The other maximum security institutions which were built before 1939, i.e., the Kingston and British Columbia Penitentiaries will, under the 10-year plan, be closed down and replaced by 1973. In these two institutions, existing facilities will be maintained and, where necessary, improved, having regard to the short remaining life of both institutions.
Programs will be prepared this year for the improvement of the following newer institutions: the Leclerc and Joyceville Institutions, the Federal Training Centre and the Collin's Bay Penitentiary.
These detailed programs define the manner in which the Penitentiary Service proposes to demolish existing buildings which cannot be economically reconstructed, convert existing buildings worthy of retention to bring all facilities up to date and comparable, as far as possible, with the new institutions now under construction or being designed.
The reconstruction program for the older institutions has, for objectives, the reduction of the inmate population of these institutions to a maximum of 450 under improved living conditions and the provision of up to date facilities as required for the conduct of a sound rehabilitation training program.
Four new medium security institutions are now under construction at Springhill, Nova Scotia, Cowansville, Quebec, Warkworth, Ontario and Drumheller, Alberta, and a specialized institution for narcotics and drug addicts is expected to be ready for occupation in the fall of 1965.
The construction of Special Detention Units for the more hostile penitentiary inmates at Dorchester, New Brunswick, St. Vincent de Paul, Quebec and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and of a maximum security institution at Ste Anne des Plaines, Quebec, is expected to commence before the end of fiscal year 1965-66.


TEACHERS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Matheson: 1.	By penitentiary institutions, what was (a) the establishment for teachers and for psycholo-
Questions
gists (b) the number of each on strength, as of December 31, 1964?
2.	What is the current salary range for (a) a teacher (b) a psychologist?
3.	What are the chief obstacles to recruiting and holding teachers and psychologists?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a)
Authorized Establishment
No. Positions No. Positions Teacher Psychologist
Dorchester
Penitentiary	3	2
Regional Head-		
quarters (Quebec)	-	6
St. Vincent de Paul		
Penitentiary	4	-
St. Vincent de Paul		
Industrial Annex	1	-Leclerc Institution	2	-Federal Training	Centre	5	-Regional Headquarters	(Ontario)	-	6Kingston Penitentiary	3	-Collin's Bay	Penitentiary	3	-Joyceville Institution	2	-Prison for Women	2	_Manitoba Penitentiary	3	2Saskatchewan	Penitentiary	3	2Regional Head-	quarters (Western)	-	2British Columbia	Penitentiary	3	-Mountain Prison	1	-William Head	2	-37	201.	(b)
On Strength, as at 31 December 1964
Teacher Psychologist
Dorchester
Penitentiary	1	lRegional Headquarters (Quebec)	-	2St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary	4	-St. Vincent de Paul Industrial Annx	-	-Leclerc Institution	2	-
Federal Training
Centre	4	-Regional Headquarters (Ontario)	-	4Kingston Penitentiary	2	-
May 19, 1965
Questions
Collin's Bay	Teacher	PsychologistPenitentiary	2	-Joyceville Institution	2	-Prison for Women Manitoba	1	Penitentiary Saskatchewan	3	iPenitentiary Regional Head-	3	iquarters (Western) British Columbia	""	iPenitentiary	2	-Mountain Prison	-	-William Head	-	--	-26	102.	(a) $3600-$10,020 per annum dependant on qualifications; (b) $6520-$8680 per annum, dependant on qualifications.3.	For a number of years, the paramount problem in recruiting and retaining teachers and psychologists has been remuneration. However, the new pay classification grades of teachers and psychologists have not been in force long enough to accurately determine what effect they will have on the recruitment and separation rate for such type positions.


VOLUNTARY CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN REFORMATORY AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Malheson: 1.	In what ways did the penitentiary service profit by voluntary citizen participation in the reformatory program during 1964?
2.	In what ways did the parole service profit by voluntary citizen participation in the rehabilitation program during 1964?
3.	How do interested organizations or individuals offer voluntary service?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The Penitentiary Service profited by voluntary citizen participation in 1964 in that inmates in substantial numbers benefited from the knowledge, training and influence exerted by the voluntary participants. In many instances the feeling of rejection by society so prevalent among inmates dissipated materially as a result of the liaison and rapport that was established with these citizens as they made their contribution to the training program in appropriate fields of endeavour which served to complement the institutional training program.
Such participation also serves to deepen public interest in an awareness of correctional needs and the contribution that in-

terested persons in the community can make toward meeting these needs.
The scope of the Citizen Participation program extended into the following activities: (i) Education; (ii) Visits and Correspondence; (iii) Recreation; (iv) Sports; (v) Participation by inmates in civic activities.
2.	The Parole Service does not have the complete statistics for the year 1964.
However, in 1963 there were 86 parolees supervised by voluntary citizens. During 1963 there were 329 parolees supervised by our Regional Representatives, 451 by Provincial Probation Officers and 812 by after-care agencies.
Apart from these, there are no statistics available as to the number of citizens who volunteer assistance to individual parolees, or to the parole program in general.
Most of the inmates released on parole have an offer of employment which means that some employer has taken an interest in their welfare and given them an opportunity to work.
3.	The commissioner of penitentiaries reports that interested individuals or organizations offer vountary service as follows:
(a)	Contacts made by senior penitentiary officials or other officers with agencies, clubs, associations and individuals who can make a worthwhile contribution to some phase of the inmate training program.
(b)	Organizations and individuals who volunteer their services directly to the institutional head.
In 1964, approximately 200 citizens participated in the inmate training program in this manner in our federal institutions.
Activities in this area vary in scope in accordance with the degree of security the institution is called on to maintain.
The Chairman of the National Parole Board reports that the Parole Board and its staff are most anxious to obtain as much assistance from the general public as possible. In this regard the Members of the Board and the staff, especially the men in the field offices, make numerous speeches and have television and radio interviews to tell the general public about the parole program and encourage their understanding of it.
We are all anxious to encourage as much voluntary citizen participation as possible, and any interested persons can volunteer assistance by writing to the National Parole Board in Ottawa, or by writing to one of our ten regional offices across the country.
May 19, 1965

The Board has published a brochure entitled "Canada's Parole System" which describes the purpose of parole and the function of the Board and its policy and procedure. This brochure has been widely distributed.
The Board has also published a booklet entitled "A Guide for Volunteer Parole Supervisors". This pamphlet is especially designed for volunteer, non-professional persons who undertake to supervise a parolee. It gives detailed information as to our policy and the problems and method of supervision. Copies of either of these pamphlets can be obtained by writing to the Parole Board.


REAL ROUSSEAU
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is one Real Rousseau a member of the Prime Minister's staff either permanent or temporary or a member of the staff of any other Minister of the Crown?
2.	If so, what is or has been the nature of his duties?
3.	What is his annual salary?
4.	If not now employed as indicated in part 1, has Real Rousseau ever been on the staff of the Prime Minister or of any other Minister of the Crown?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The answer to part 1 is no.
The answer to parts 2 and 3 is that these parts are not applicable.
The answer to part 4 is also no.


CAR PURCHASES BY R.C.M.P. AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has there been any recent departure from the policy of purchasing cars for the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Northern Affairs by having individual tenders from local dealers processed through the manufacturers concerned?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the change and for what reason was it made?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Industry and Defence Production as follows:
1. Yes, in relation to R.C.M.P. vehicles only. There has been no departure from the regular policy of purchasing cars in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This policy has been in effect since June, 1957. Tenders are solicited from manufacturers, i.e., Ford, General Motors, etc., through their head office or Ottawa representative. The manufacturers obtain prices from dealers in the area through their zone offices and submit the lowest tender to the Department.
Questions
2. On December 29, 1964, the Treasury Board directed the Department of Defence Production to obtain quotations for the supply of vehicles required by the R.C.M.P. from the vehicle manufacturers on a "no trade in" basis, with the provision that the vehicles were to be delivered to the R.C.M.P. through the manufacturers' normal dealer channels. The manufacturers were also required to make arrangements with the dealer body for vehicle warranty service. The disposal of the used vehicles was to be carried out by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


CONVERSION AND REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;FRASER&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for the conversion and refit of the destroyer escort H.M.C.S. Fraser?
2.	What were the names of the shipyards which tendered on this work and the amounts of the various tenders?
3.	To what company will the contract he awarded?
4.	Where is H.M.C.S. Fraser normally berthed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: Yes.
2.	Tenderers and bid prices (excluding federal sales tax) were: Canadian Vickers Shipyards Ltd., $2,881,936; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., $2,955,809; Saint John Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. Ltd., $2,999,400; Marine Industries Ltd., $3,039,100; Halifax Shipyards, $3,266,690; Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited, $3,607,090; Burrard Drydock Co. Ltd., $3,664,491; Yarrows, Ltd., $3,750,709.
3.	The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.
4.	H.M.C.S Fraser has been operating out of Esquimalt, B.C. However, on completion of the conversion, it will operate out of Halifax, N.S.


BAGOTVILLE-SAGUENAY AIRPORT
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What is the estimated cost of the airport that will shortly be built at Bagotville-Saguenay?
2.	What will be the cost of installations at this airport?
3.	When is it proposed to begin this work?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The new terminal building to be erected at the Bagotville-Saguenay airport is expected to cost $300,000.
2.	Related installations at the new air terminal are expected to cost $175,000.
3.	Tender calls are expected to be made next September.
Questions

May 19. 1965


'WITHDRAWAL OF MEDAL FROM R.C.M.P. OFFICER
Mr. Marcoux: Was Mr. Rene J. Belee, former Assistant Superintendent in the R.C.M.P., stripped of the Long Service Medal which he had received in 1953 and, if so, (a) for what reason (b) on whose authority was the action taken?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. (a) due to
infractions to, and condemnations under, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and (b) under the authority devolved upon the commissioner under section 214 of the R.C.M.P. regulations.

RETIREMENT FROM R.C.M.P. OF RENfi J. BELEC


Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Has Mr. Rene J. Belee, former Chief Superintendent in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, been retired and, if so, as of what date and for what reason?
2.	How many years of service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had Mr. Belee?
3.	Is he receiving a pension based on the full number of years of his service and, if not, for what reason?
4.	What is the difference in the amount of pension Mr. Belee is presently receiving and that to which he would normally be entitled calculated according to the full number of years of his service?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes as of
December 8, 1964, to promote the efficiency of the force.
2.	31 years and 165 days.
3.	No, because section 27(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act prevents a pension based on the full number of years of service being granted in the circumstances of Mr. Belec's case.
4.	If he had retired voluntarily with 31 completed years of service, he would have been entitled to an additional $220.80 per annum. If he had been compulsorily retired to promote efficiency under normal circumstances with 31 completed years of service, he would have been entitled to an additional $1,932 per annum.


RUSSIAN ESPIONAGE MEETING, SMITHS FALLS, ONT.
Mr. Marcoux: Was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Informed that, in 1958, a Soviet agent was to meet Robert Glenn Thompson, an American citizen, 
presently accused of spying for the Russians, in front of a cinema in Smiths Falls, Ontario and, if so, what line of action was followed in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Robert Glenn Thompson, an American citizen, is currently before the United States courts awaiting sentence in connection with charges of conspiracy to commit espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union.
In this case, there has been the usual exchange of information between the American and Canadian security agencies but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the nature of the information exchanged or the investigative action that was followed.


TENDERS FOR METAL WINDOWS, R.C.A.F. STATION
Mr. Loney: 1.	Were tenders called for "supply and installation-metal windows bldgs. Nos. 3, 4. 5. 7, 10 and combined mess R.C.A.F. station (File No. 737-C12-3 on November 18, 1964?
2.	What were the names and addresses of the tenderers?
3.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): In so far as Defence Construction (1951) Limited is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1. Yes.
2 and 3. Victor Gauthier, 25 Maisonneuve, Sept lies, Quebec, $13,820; Alsco Distributors of Eastern Ontario Limited, 401 Courte-manche, Montreal East, Quebec, $21,980.16; Paul Bilodeau & Fils Inc., 158 Brunele, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Champlain, Quebec, $29,968; Labourse & Sept lies Glass Inc., 360 Perreault Ave., Sept lies, Quebec, $33,755.71.
4.	No. The lowest tender received from Victor Gauthier, 25 Maisonneuve, Sept lies, Quebec, was not acceptable since it did not meet the requirements of the specifications. As a result the contractor voluntarily withdrew his bid.


RETENTION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given, in regard to legislation for the abolition of capital punishment, to retaining the death penalty for persons convicted of murdering peace officers, i.e. policemen and prison guards?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There has been no announcement of Government policy ex-
May 19, 1965

cept the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that arrangements would be made for a free vote on the subject of capital punishment.


PERSONS CHARGED IN COURT UNABLE TO AFFORD COUNSEL
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the number of persons charged annually in Canadian courts with crimes punishable by one year or more in prison?
2.	What is the number of these defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Statistics are not available on the number of persons charged annually in Canadian courts with crimes punishable by one year or more in prison. However, in 1962 (the latest figures available), the number of persons convicted of indictable offences and particulars of sentence were: Total number of persons convicted of indictable offences, 38,663; sentence suspended with or without probation, or option of fine 19,957; sentenced to gaol, reformatory, training school, penitentiary, 18,693; sentenced to imprisonment for one year and over, 6,288; sentenced to death, 13.
2. The Department of Justice has no records from which an answer to this question may be prepared.


DORCHESTER COUNTY RESIDENTS IN PRISON
Mr. Boutin: 1.	How many prisoners from Dorchester county are presently serving sentences of imprisonment of (a) 20 years and over (b) 15 years and over (c) between 10 and 15 years (d) between 5 and 10 years (e) between 2 and 5 years (f) less than 2 years?
2.	How are these prisoners distributed by parish in this county'


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Seven inmates from Dorchester county are presently serving sentences of imprisonment in penitentiaries of the province of Quebec for periods of time listed hereafter: (a) 20 years and over, nil; (b) 15 years and over, nil; (c) between 10 and 15 years, nil; (d) between 5 and 10 years, 4; (e) between 2 and 5 years, 3; (f) inmates sentenced to terms of 2 years or less are incarcerated in provincial institutions. Related statistics are not available to this department.
2. The inmates referred to above originate from the following parishes: Frampton, 1; St.
Anselme, 1; St. Benjamin, 1; Ste Claire, 1;
Questions
St. Leon de Standon, 1; St. Prosper, 1; St. Malachie, 1.


TENDER SYSTEM FOR R.C.M.P. AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Jorgenson: Has the system for tendering on R.C.M.P. automobiles changed and, if so, what is the one presently in effect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. Quotations for vehicles required by the R.C.M.P. are presently being obtained by the Department of Defence Production from the vehicle manufacturers on a "no trade in" basis. Delivery of the new vehicle is being made through the manufacturers' dealer body and this body is also providing the required warranty service. Disposal of the used vehicle is being carried out by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


GRANT FOR PERFORMING ARTS FESTIVAL
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government authorized a grant of $3,300,000 to the Centennial Commission for a Festival of the Performing Arts to be held during Centennial year and, if so, on what date was such authorization given?


Maurice Lamontagne: On March 31, 1965, the Treasury Board authorized the Centennial Commission, in accordance with sections 9 (2) (c) and 9 (3) (b) of the Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act, to develop and administer a program of the performing arts and to charge the cost of the project (estimated at $3,300,000) to Secretary of State, Vote 30-"Centennial Commission Programs and projects of national significance including grants towards such programs and projects-Other Projects", of the Estimates for 1965-66 and subsequent fiscal years, subject to the provision of funds by Parliament.


TRANSLATION OF FEDERAL STATUTES
Mr. Malheson: 1.	Has the government received criticisms with respect to the quality of the translations into English or into French of federal statutes?
2.	In light of the possibility of different legal interpretations to English and French versions of federal statutes, has the government given consideration to (a) improved translations to legal statutes (b) the printing of English and French versions of federal statutes side by side?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No, but it
is recognized that improvements can be made.

May 19. 1965
Questions
2. Steps are being taken within the Department of Justice to establish a system so as to ensure juridical accuracy of both versions. Both questions (a) and (b) will also be referred to the Statute Revision Commission for consideration.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING POULTRY PROCESSING
Mr. Howe (Wellington-: Huron):
1.	What are the regulations that must he followed by a Canadian processor of poultry as outlined by the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	Has the Department of Agriculture regulations similar to those imposed by the American Department of Agriculture and if, not, in what respect do they differ?
3.	What percentage of the American processors exporting to Canada comply with the regulations as laid out by the Health of Animals Branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The regulations of the Canada Meat Inspection Act.
2.	Yes.
3.	All products entering Canada must be consistent with the provisions of the Canada Meat Inspection Act.


POULTRY DISEASES DETECTED THROUGH EXAMINATION OF FEET
Mr. Howe (Wellington-: Huron):
1.	What are the diseases common in poultry that may be detected through an examination of the feet of the birds?
2.	What was the total number of chickens slaughtered in Ontario in the period from January 1, 1965 to March 31, 1965?
3.	Of the total number of birds slaughtered, how many carcasses were condemned due to disease which was detected through an examination of the feet?


Harry William Hays: 1. Among the more prevalent diseases in poultry which may be detected through examination of the feet are perosis, synovitis, arthritis, leucosis and avitaminosis.
2.	10,908,823 birds were slaughtered at inspected establishments in Ontario between January 1, 1965 and March 31, 1965.
3.	Figures are not available since statistics relative to diseases detected through specific inspection of feet are not maintained.


CONSTRUCTION OF R.CM.P. QUARTERS, ARBORG, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government plans to build R.C.M.P. Detachment Quarters during the present fiscal year at Arborg. Manitoba and, if so, what type of De-

tachment Quarters do the plans call for and when will tenders be called?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The 1965-66 R.C.M. Police estimates include provision of funds to construct a detachment building at Arborg, Manitoba. The Department of Public Works is preparing plans for the building which will provide living quarters for the member in charge, with annexed office, cell-room, single members' quarters and garage. It is anticipated tenders will be called approximately July 1, 1965.


ELIGIBLE LIST FOR POST OFFICE, BRAS D'OR, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the Civil Service Commission held a competition to establish an eligible list for the Bras d'Or Post Office, Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia and, if not, is it planned to hold a competition to establish such a list?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission: (a) Not since 1956. (b) None is planned.


CONSTRUCTION OF R.C.M.P. QUARTERS, GRAND RAPIDS, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government plans to build R.C.M.P. Detachment Quarters during the present fiscal year at Grand Rapids, Manitoba and, if so, what type of Detachment Quarters do the plans call for and when will tenders be called?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates of federal penitentiaries are now receiving training which is recognized by provincial and federal apprenticeship boards?
2.	How many vacancies are there at present for vocational training instructors and school teachers in the various penitentiaries, and in what institutions do these vacancies exist?
3.	How many hours	does	an inmate actually
spend in vocational training shop per day, excluding taking counts and movement to and from place of training?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. As of March 1965:
Full time formal trade school training	371
Part time, on the job, and apprenticeship	training	383
Total	754
May 19, 1965

This refers to organized training only and does not include those working at designated and non-designated trades under the supervision of qualified staff	members;	the work
experience of inmates employed in this way		
may be evaluated in	terms of	equivalent
training at a later date.		
	Vocational	
	Training	School
2. Institution	Instructors	Teachers
St. Vincent de		
Paul	2	1
Federal Training		
Centre	2	
Kingston		1
Collin's Bay		1
Joyceville	1	
Manitoba	1	
British Columbia		1
William Head		1
Mountain		1
Totals	6	6Grand Total	12	63.	Between six and seven depending on local conditions and circumstances.


TRAINING FOR PENITENTIARY STAFFS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is remunerative recognition given to professional penitentiary staff who have qualifications exceeding the minimum requirements of the penitentiary service?
2.	Are there monetary incentives provided for custodial staff in our penitentiaries to improve their education and training for greater proficiency in job performance?
3. Do all custodial officers in our correctional institutions receive training in the behavioural sciences by qualified professional staff?
4.	Does the federal government contemplate the provision of training grants and bursaries for its employees in the field of correction and welfare in view of the fact that moneys are now made
Questions
available to the provinces for similar training in these fields?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The present pay classification grades provide a remuneration to professional penitentiary staff according to their academic qualifications and years of experience.
2.	There are no monetary incentives, other than qualifying for promotion, for custodial staff in the Penitentiary Service. All custodial staff, irrespective of length of service, are required to undergo a continuing on-the-job training and refresher training, and those who seek promotion at the various levels have to qualify on specific centralized courses at the Correctional Staff Colleges. In this manner, a standard of proficiency is maintained and those individuals who have the capability and are suitable, have the opportunity to increase their knowledge and improve their ability through centralized courses.
3.	All custodial staff who participate in centralized courses at a Correctional Staff College are given basic instruction in behavioural sciences by qualified staff. This includes custodial recruits.
4.	This matter is presently under consideration.


MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of training programs, bursaries and short courses in the field of mental health in each of the past ten years?
2.	Wha+ was the total amount available in mental health grants for each of these years?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Financial
assistance, for the purposes shown below, was made available by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the National Health Grants, as follows:
1. Training Programs Bursaries	Short Courses	2. Amount Available1955-56	18	336	155	$7,234,8681956-57	17	333	156	7,234,8681957-58	17	358	194	7,234,8681958-59	19	379	147	7,234,8681959-60	20	394	196	7,234,8681960-61	22	409	178	8,765,3911961-62	20	398	218	8,765,3911962-63	20	393	163	8,765,3911963-64	18	406	164	8,765,3911964-65	19	422	189	8,765,391
May 19, 1965
Questions


CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, COWANSVILLE PENITENTIARY
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	On what date did the B. & M. Construction Co. Ltd. of Sweetsburg obtain a contract from the Department of Public Works for the construction of the Cowansvilie Penitentiary, and for what amount?
2.	Did this company accompany its tender with a certified cheque or surety bond for the execution of this contract and, if so, what was its percentage of the total amount of the contract and, in the case of a surety bond, what was the name of the company?
3.	Did the contract let to B. & M. Construction Ltd. contain a clause or clauses guaranteeing 100 per cent of amounts claimable in favour of the subcontractors?
4.	If there were guarantee clauses or requirements for such guarantees, were they required by the Department of Public Works and met by the contractor?
5.	If not, for what reason did the Department of Public Works not require that such guarantee clauses be met?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The contract for the medium security institution (Phase I) was awarded to B. & M. Construction Co. Ltd. on March 11, 1963 in the amount of $362,298.
2.	The company's tender was accompanied by a certified cheque from the Royal Bank of Canada at Cowansvilie, Que. in the amount of $32,500.
3.	The standard government contract form and schedules used in this contract do not guarantee 100 per cent of amounts claimable in favour of the subcontractors.
4 and 5. Not applicable.


INMATES AND STAFFS OF PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the total number of inmates in federal penitentiaries as of the last date for which the annual report was prepared?
2.	What is the total staff employed in these penitentiaries and, of these, how many are guards, teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.?
3.	What qualifications are required for the professional staff?
4.	What are the minimum qualifications for guards employed in penitentiaries?
5.	Is there a compulsory training course for people hired as guards and, if so, what type of course, and how long does it take to complete this course?
6.	How many penitentiaries are there in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. On the 31st March 1965, there were 7,518 inmates in federal penitentiaries.
2. The total staff employed in federal penitentiaries, excluding Penitentiary Headquar-

ters in Ottawa, number 3,223, classified as follows:
Staff Strength as at 31 March 1965
Executive and Administrative	108
Division, Organization & Administration Personnel Officers	10
Staff Training Officers	31
Clerks & Stenographers	264
Division, Inmate Training
Custody (Correctional Officers)	1,542
Vocational Training (Vocational
Instructors)	99
Educational (Teachers)	26
Classification & Psychological
(Psychologists)	11
(Classification Officers)	54
Recreation (Inmate Training Officers) 58 Spiritual (Chaplains)	19
Medical
(Psychiatrist, Part Time)	3
(Psychiatrist, 5 on contract)	-
(Physician, Full Time)	1
(Physician, 9 on contract)	-
(Dentist, Part Time)	5
(Dentist, 4 on contract)	-
(Hospital Officers, Assistant
Hospital Dental Technicians)	119
Division, Services & Supplies Financial Services (Accountants,
Bookkeepers)	101
Purchasing & Stores (Storekeepers,
Storemen)	62
Farms (Farm Managers, Asst. Farm Managers, Herdsmen, Fieldmen, etc.)	75
Food Services (Stewards)	98
Works (Tradesmen)	178
Utilities (Stationary Engineers,
Service Plant Operators)	131
Institutional Services (Tradesmen,
drivers, garage)	66
Division, Industries
Industrial Instructors (Tradesmen)	162
Grand Total	3,223
3. The qualifications required for the professional staff are:
Psychologist 1: Graduation from a university of recognized standing, with a Bachelor's degree in psychology, plus 3 years' suitable experience. Candidates with all requirements for an M.A. degree in psychology less thesis are eligible for appointment to this grade without the experience requirement.
Psychologist 2: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a Master's degree in psychology.
May 19, 1965



Psychologist 3: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a Master's degree in psychology, plus 2 years' responsible professional experience; OR completion of all requirements for a Ph.D. degree in psychology less thesis.
Psychologist 4: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a Ph.D. in psychology; OR a Master's degree in psychology plus 5 years' responsible professional experience.
Classification Officer 1: High school graduation (Grade XII or Grade XI, depending on province) plus a minimum of 3 years' experience in interviewing, social work, welfare, or equivalent similar experience; OR graduation from a university of recognized standing, with a general B.A.
Classification Officer 2: High school graduation (Grade XII or Grade XI, depending on province) plus a minimum of 3 years' experience in interviewing, social work, welfare, etc., plus at least three years as a Classification Officer 1 or equivalent similar experience; OR graduation from a university of recognized standing with a general B.A. degree, plus three years as a Classification Officer 1, or equivalent experience.
Classification Officer 3: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a postgraduate degree or diploma in criminology, social work, education or sociology; OR at least three years' experience as a Classification Officer 2 plus successful completion of an examination to determine suitability and *equivalent qualifications.
Classification Officer 4: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a postgraduate degree or diploma in criminology, social work, education, or sociology plus 5 years' suitable related experience.
Classification Officer 5: Graduation from a university of recognized standing with a postgraduate degree or diploma in criminology, social work, education, or sociology plus 8 years of relevant experience including at least 2 years of relevant administrative and supervisory experience.
Teachers: The qualifications required from teachers employed in the Service relate favourably with those required from teachers seeking employment in the various provinces of Canada. The Service pay levels for teachers are based on a combination of qualifications and years of experience.
Other professionals: Doctors, psychiatrists and dentists are normally on a contract basis, with each contract requiring approval by the Treasury Board.
Questions
4.	The minimum qualifications for guards employed in penitentiaries are: Age: 21 to 40 years of age; Education: Grade 10 or equivalent; Height: 5' 6"; Weight: Appropriate for height and built; Physical Fitness: To meet the Service physical standard for undertaking a rigorous Induction Training Course of 9 weeks, involving periods in self-defence training.
5.	All persons hired as guards are required to complete satisfactorily an Induction Training Course of not less than 9 weeks in duration; this course must be completed within the first year of service while the new recruit is still on probation.
6.	There are 26 penitentiaries in Canada.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON EDUCATION, SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEFENCE
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	In the last fiscal year, what percentage of federal government spending was devoted to (a) per capita grants for higher education (b) social welfare measures (c) defence?
2.	What changes in the percentages are estimated for the current fiscal year?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The answer to part 1 is as follows:
(a)	0.4 per cent, (b) 21.0 per cent, (c) 22.0 per cent. These percentages are based on the latest published figures as set out in the Budget Papers 1965-66 which were tabled April 12, 1965.
The answer to part 2 is as follows:
(a)	No change, (b) minus 2.0 per cent, (c) minus 1.0 per cent. The percentage in 2(b) is
based on the expectation that Quebec will contract out of certain shared-cost programs. This item would have read "no change" had Quebec not chosen to contract out.


PURCHASE OF R.C.M.P. CARS
Mr. Forbes: 1.	When did the Department of Justice discontinue the practice of asking for competitive bids from automobile agencies when purchasing R.C.M.P. cars?
2.	When did the Department of Justice commence purchasing such cars direct from the manufacturers and is it the intention of the Department to continue this direct purchase policy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to the first part is, when Treasury Board issued a directive on December 29, 1964, instructing the Department of Defence Production to procure vehicles on behalf of the R.C.M.P. from the vehicle manufacturers.
14S6

May 19, 1965
Questions
The answer to the second part of the question is, it is the intention of the Department of Justice to follow the procedure referred to in part I.


LOANS FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made under the National Housing Act part VI B assented to December 2, 1960, loans for municipal sewage treatment projects?
2.	What is the total amount of loans?
3.	What is the total amount for each of the following years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
4.	What is the total amount of reduction to date of the indebtedness of these loans under the forgiveness clause?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. To March 31, 1965, net loans approved under the National Housing Act, Part VI B, for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects, totalled 783.
2.	The total amount of net loans approved was $150.7 million. Of this, $97.0 million had been advanced.
3.	The net amounts of loans approved annually were:
Amount
Year	($ millions)
1961	39.5
1962	43.4
1963	35.9
1964	26.2
1965	(Jan.-Mar.)	5.8
4.	The reduction of indebtedness under the forgiveness clause to March 31, 1965, was $24.4 million.


LOANS IN MANITOBA FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made in the Province of Manitoba under the National Housing Act, amendment Part VI B assented to December 2, 1960, loans for municipal sewage treatment projects?
2. What is the total amount of these loans?
3. What is the total amount to date of the reduction of the indebtedness under the forgiveness clause of these loans?
4.	What projects have been approved in Manitoba, giving date of approval, name of municipality and amount of loan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. To March 31, 1965, net loans approved in the Province of Manitoba under the National Housing Act, Part VI B, for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects, totalled 66.

2.	The total amount of net loans approved was $15.0 million. Of this, $4.0 million had
been advanced.
3.	In the Province of Manitoba, the reduction of indebtedness under the forgiveness clause to March 31st, 1965, was $1.0 million.
4.	N.H.A. Loans Approved in Manitoba for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects
1961-March 31st, 1965 (B
	Date of	Amount of Loan
Municipality	Approval	$000Beausejour	May, 1962	8Brandon	March, 1964	49April, 1964	140May, 1964	774Cartwright	June, 1962	28Crystal	November, 1961	16Dauphin	May, 1962	128Deloraine	July, 1962	40Elkhorn	May, 1963	32Erickson	May, 1962	14Gilbert Plains	November, 1963	20Gimli	May, 1964	18September, 1964	19Gladstone	October, 1964	9Grandview	July, 1964	43Gretna	June, 1961	37Hamiota	August, 1962	27Harrison	August, 1964	23Hartney	August, 1961	13Lac du Bonnet	August, 1963	44Lorne- Swan Lake	November, 1962	21MacGregor	August, 1963	44Melita	October, 1964	8Miniota	October, 1964	9Morden	April, 1961	27Neepawa	October, 1962	14Oak Lake	November, 1962	26Pilot Mound	August, 1963	29Portage la Prairie	May, 1961	93R.M. of Pipestone	September, 1962	25R.M. of Strathclair	May, 1964	21R.M. of Thompson	November, 1963	22R.M. of Victoria	November, 1963	21Rossburn	September, 1963	34Ste. Anne	October, 1964	30St. Pierre	October, 1962	35Ste Rose du Lac	October 1963	39Shoal Lake	June, 1961	32Somerset	November, 1961	21Treherne	November, 1962	18
May 19, 1965

Questions
	Date of	Amount of Loan
Municipality	Approval	$000Winnipeg	January, 1963	74May, 1963	164June, 1963	13May, 1964	12November, 1964	80January, 1965	48Winnipeg-	Charleswood	October, 1962	163February, 1963	108July, 1963	523August, 1963	383October, 1963	87October, 1963	15October, 1963	253December, 1963	156January, 1964	492Winnipeg-	Fort Garry	April, 1964	92Winnipeg-	North End	June, 1963	4,471July, 1963	280September, 1963	177October, 1963	152October, 1963	4,727Winnipeg-	St. James	August, 1963	56October, 1963	116October, 1963	75November, 1963	176Winnipeg-	Beach	April, 1962	34TOTAL	14,978(!) Data are net of cancellation,	etc.


STAFF OF INDIAN HOSPITAL, FORT QU'APPELLE, SASK.
Mr. Ormiston: 1.	What is the number of staff employed at the Indian Hospital, Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the number of professional employees (doctors, nurses, etc.) and number of non-professional employees (waitresses, housekeepers, etc.) ?
3.	What are the rates of pay for (a) doctors (b) nurses (c) dietitians (d) laboratory technicians (e) radiological technicians?
4.	What are the rates of pay for (a) cooks (b) waitresses (c) housekeepers (d) housemaids (e) auxiliary nurses?
5.	Is there any discrepancy between wages paid to employees of the Indian Hospital and wages paid to employees in similar institutions?
6.	Are any of the rates of pay listed below standards set by the provincial minimum wage regulations?
7.	Have any representations been made to the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding integration of hospital facilities at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan and, if so, by whom?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. 118.
2.	Professional employees, 27; non-professional employees, 91.
3.	(a) Medical Officer 1 $10,100 to $11,000; Medical Officer 2 $11,100 to $i3,100; Medical Officer 3 $12,600 to $15,100; Medical Officer 4 $14,600 to $16,100.
(b)	Graduate Nurse 1 $3,750 to $4,800; Graduate Nurse 2 $4,590 to $5,040; Graduate Nurse 3 $5,100 to $5,640.
(c)	Dietitian 1 $4,200 to $4,920; Dietitian 2 $5,160 to $5,880.
(d)	Technician 1 (Hospital Lab), $3,420 to $3,720; Technician 2 (Hospital Lab), $3,720 to $4,170; Technician 3 (Hospital Lab), $4,250 to $4,700; Technician 4 (Hospital Lab), $4,920 to $5,460.
(e)	Technician 1 X-Ray, $3,420 to $3,720; Technician 2 X-Ray, $3,600 to $4,050; Technician 3 X-Ray $4,490 to $4,940; Technician 4 X-Ray, $5,460 to $6,060.
4.	(a) Hospital Cook 1, $2,900 to $3,200; Hospital Cook 2, $3,350 to $3,800; Hospital Cook 3, $3,730 to $4,180.
(b)	Housemaid 1, $1.00 per hour; Housemaid 2, $1.06 per hour; Housemaid 3, $1.13 per hour.
(c)	same as (b).
(d)	same as (b).
(e)	Ward Aide 1, $195 per month; Ward Aide 2, $205 per month; Ward Aide 3, $215 per month.
5.	Wage rates paid to employees who are subject to the Civil Service Act are approved by the Treasury Board on the basis of recommendations of the Pay Research Bureau which conducts periodic wage surveys for the classes concerned. Rates paid to employees in the prevailing rate category are approved by the Treasury Board on the basis of wage surveys conducted by the Department of Labour and therefore reflect rates paid in similar institutions in the area.
6.	All rates paid are above the minimum provincial standards.
7.	The only other hospital facility in the immediate vicinity is Fort San. While the working relationship between the two institutions has been traditionally good, there has not been any formal representation for closer integration.


APPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH RESEARCH GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National

May 19, 1965
Questions
Health and Welfare get in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar-value of the projects requested from the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department of National Health and Welfare were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The following information relates to applications received by the Department of National Health and Welfare for grants under the National Health Grants program to finance research projects:
1.	2.	3.	4.	5*1962-63	364	$4,489,102	191	101	701963-64	370	4,665,989	176	85	1061964-65	353	4,262,952	205	84	576.	Research projects do not receive approval as submitted under the National Health Grants when they exceed the funds allocated for this purpose and when they are considered by appraisers, consultants and advisory committees to be poorly designed or for unsound research.
*A few projects were cancelled or altered at the request of the researchers or their sponsoring Provinces.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee on Scientific Research (like the Committee on Defence) which could hear representations from government departments involved in research, the National Research Council, the Universities, and organizations such as the Canadian Association of Physicists, the Chemical Institute of Canada, Engineering Institute of Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Mathematical Congress, the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, and the Royal Society of Canada, as to what program of scientific research is required in Canada in order to develop a program adequate to meet Canada's needs in this technological age?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A reply to a similar question a year ago stated that the government had considered the advisability of establishing a Parliamentary Committee on Scientific Research but felt it would be best to defer it until after the establishment of the Scientific Secretariat. Since that time, progress has been made in the establishment of the Secretariat in the Privy Council Office and it has received

representations from a number of scientific and other organizations. The Secretariat has worked on the legislation to establish a Science Council of Canada which was announced in the Speech from the Throne. Following consideration of the legislation and the setting up of the Council, there would be advantage in putting before a Committee information concerning the views of interested organizations in Canada, those of the council, and recommendations concerning measures to encourage the progress and application of scientific research in Canada. The proposal to amend Standing Order 65 includes provision for a special committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development.


ESTABLISHMENT OF FISHERIES BIOLOGICAL
Mr. Siefanson: Has the federal government received a request from the Province of Manitoba to establish a biological station at Grand Rapids, Manitoba to carry out research in regard to freshwater fisheries and, if so, what action has been taken or what action is planned?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No, but Manitoba at the federal-provincial fisheries development conference in January 1964 emphasized the need for freshwater research services in the Prairie Provinces. This matter is presently receiving active consideration by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.


JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many juvenile offenders are now in federal penitentiaries?
2.	In how many cases did the court have presentence recommendations from social workers, probation officers, psychiatrists, etc.?
3.	What facilities, if any, are there for segregation of these juveniles from the adult inmates?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. As of December 31, 1964, there were eight juvenile offenders in federal penitentiaries.
2.	No information is available within this Department on these statistics.
3.	No separate facilities exist as such. However, in the Montreal area, many are transferred to the Federal Training Centre, an institution for young offenders. In other institutions, attempts are made to segregate juveniles from the adult inmates, as far as facilities permit.
May 19, 1985


QUALIFICATIONS OF INSTRUCTORS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: What qualifications are required by the vocational training instructors and industrial instructors who are employed by the penitentiaries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: (1) The qualifications required by vocational instructors are as follows: (a) Grade 12 or acceptable
equivalent, matriculation from technical high school preferred; (b) Formal apprenticeship, journeyman status for at least 5 years; (c) some supervisory experience; (d) Knowledge and experience of related trades; (e) Valid vocational teachers certificate preferred or experience in instructional techniques; (f) Good knowledge of apprenticeship methods and training systems; (g) Ability to plan, organize and teach courses following such methods and systems; (h) Knowledge and experience in man management, including previous responsibility for supervision of others, preferably in a training situation; (i) Leadership, reliability, maturity, resourcefulness, good judgment, tact and physical fitness.
(2) The qualifications required for industrial instructors are as follows: (a) Grade 10 or acceptable equivalent, preferably some technical school training; (b) Journeyman status and a number of years experience in the trade; (c) A good working knowledge of all phases of the trade; (d) A good working knowledge of the care, safe efficient use of all machinery used in the shop; (e) Ability to get along with people and handle men;
(f)	Ability to maintain good order and supervisory control; (g) Good character, sound judgment, acceptable personality; (h) Good physical condition.
Qualifications for industrial trades vary with each province of Canada. Therefore, the qualifications outlined above for industrial tradesmen are basic and designed to permit change to meet provincial requirements.


INCARCERATION OF KENNETH AND JAMES MEEKER
Mr. Howard: In what location of what penitentiary are (a) Kenneth Meeker, and (b) James Meeker, kept?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Inmates Kenneth and James Meeker are being held in protective custody at their own request at the British Columbia penitentiary.
Questions


APPROVAL OF MACTAQUAC DAM CONSTRUCTION
Mr. MacRae: Has approval been given for the construction of the Mactaquac Dam by the Government of Canada under the Navigable Waters Act?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


EMPLOYMENT OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, DOCTORS ETC. IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Orlikow: How many of the psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians and dentists, employed by the federal government work full time at the penitentiaries and of those who work part time, how many hours per week does each work in the penitentiaries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Canadian Penitentiary Service employs 11 psychologists
and 1 physician on a full time basis.
The Service employs five psychiatrists, nine physicians and four dentists on a contract basis. These professionals are not required to work a certain number of hours, but to provide services as required.
Three psychiatrists and five dentists are employed on a part time basis and are required to work in penitentiaries on the basis of three hours per day for five days per week.


RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT
Mr. Gelber: 1.	Is the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817 concerning naval forces on the Great Lakes still in effect?
2.	Do the principles outlined in the exchange of notes of November 18 and December 5, 1946, still prevail?
3.	Do the problems of North American defence, almost 150 years 'later, require a reformulation of the Agreement?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secreiary of Siaie for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. In the language of the exchange of notes of November 18 and December 5, 1946, " ... it has been recognized by both our Governments that the detailed provisions of the Rush-Bagot Agreement are not applicable to present day conditions, but that as a symbol of friendly relations extending over a period of nearly 130 years the Agreement possesses great historic importance. It is thus the spirit of the Agreement rather than its detailed provisions which serves to guide our Governments in matters relating to naval forces on the Great Lakes."


'OMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1965
Questions

Mr. Malheson: 1.	Are thorough psychiatric and neurological tests given to inmates upon admission to each federal institution?
2.	Has consideration been given to the advisability of testing all inmates with electroencephalography in order to detect organic as distinct from functional disorders?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Psychiatric examinations are performed when observations or recommendations are made for such and that may not necessarily be at the time of admission.
Neurological examination will be performed by the neurological consultant upon recommendation of the penitentiary physician.
2. Electroencephalography is done whenever the penitentiary physician feels that there is or may be organic involvement which may be responsible for the symptoms exhibited.


COAL EXPORTS TO JAPAN
Mr. Woolliams: X. How many tons of coal were exported from Alberta to Japan in the year 1964?
2.	Are there continuing coal contracts between Japan and Canada for the year 1965, and for what tonnage?
3.	With regard to the imbalance of trade payments (a) what was the 1964 trade deficit between Canada and the United States in dollars (b) what was the trade deficit between Canada and all the trading nations in dollars in 1964?


John B. Stewart: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Statistics of this type are not available as yet. It is hoped that figures on this basis will be available for the year 1965.
2.	Yes. Alberta and British Columbia mines have contracts on a fiscal year basis for
800.000	tons annually until March 31, 1967. Another contract is under negotiation for
150.000	tons annually for a possible two year term.
3.	There are two quite different measurements of the net results of trade between Canada and other countries. One is the trade balance calculated from the monthly Trade of Canada record of merchandise movements across Canada's borders. The other is the payments balance calculated from the quarterly balance of payments estimates of the transactions underlying movements of goods and services between Canada and other countries. The two records differ widely in coverage, and where coverage is the same often

differ in timing; (a) The import balance on commodity trade with the United States in 1964 was $727 million. The over-all payments deficit on goods and services is estimated at $1,659 million; (b) The export balance on commodity trade with all countries, including the United States, in 1964, was $814 million. There was nevertheless a payments deficit on goods and services which is estimated at $453 million.


PRISON GUARDS KILLED BY INMATES
Mr. Scoff: In each of the last 50 years, how many guards or other officials in the prisons of Canada have been killed by inmates serving sentences?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: During the last 50 years, six guards or other officials of the Canadian Penitentiary Service have been killed by inmates serving sentences. There are no statistics available to this department on the subject of this question in reference to provincial institutions.


PRISON GUARDS KILLED BY LIFE PRISONERS
Mr. Scott: In each of the last 50 years, how many cases are there in which an accused convicted of murder, whose sentence of hanging was commuted to life imprisonment, did while in prison, kill a guard or other prison official?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No such cases were reported in the records of the service.


COMPLETION OF BRIDGE, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it expected that the Covehead Bridge on the Gulf Shore Highway in the P.E.I. National Park will be open for traffic?
2.	What date did construction commence?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. June 28, 1965.
2. August 17, 1964.


R.C.M.P. DETACHMENT QUARTERS, HODGSON, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government plans to build R.C.M.P. Detachment Quarters during the present fiscal year at Hodgson, Manitoba and, if so, what type of Detachment Quarters do the plans call for and when will tenders be called?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.
May 19, 1965


NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING PASSAMA-QUODDY POWER PROJECT
Mr. Bell: 1.	How many meetings have been held between Canada and the United States regarding the Pas-samaquoddy project; when and where and with what results in each case?
2.	Were the negotiations conducted by the New Brunswick Government approved of by Ottawa?
3.	Are negotiations between the two governments continuing, and are further meetings planned?
4.	Has any money been allotted for this project in the Estimates of 1965-66 and, if so, what are the details?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. Information of a technical nature regarding the Passamaquoddy project was exchanged at a meeting of Canadian and United States government officials held in Ottawa on December 4 and 5, 1963. There have been no meetings since.
2.	No negotiations regarding this project have been conducted by the New Brunswick government.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	No allotment has been made.


USE OF CHURCH PRESS FOR GOVERNMENT
Mr. Winkler: Will the Prime Minister reconsider government policy in regard to using the Canadian Church Press as a medium for official government purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The selection of advertising media "for official government purposes" is a matter for determination by each Department. No general policy is imposed with respect to the employment of any class or category of media.


EXPO '67-LEASE OF LAND FOR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the National Harbours Board leased any land under its ownership or control for the building of a home for Commissioner Pierre Dupuy of Expo '67 and, if so, what are the terms and who
is the lessee?
2.	What is the value of the said land?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to part 1 of this question is no. The answer to part 2 is, see the answer to part 1.


PERSONNEL OF RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN EMBASSIES
Mr. Tardif: 1. What is the number of U.S.S.R. citizens employed and attached to the U.S.S.R. Embassy (a) in Ottawa (b) in Canada?
Questions
2. What is the number of Canadian citizens employed and attached to the Canada Embassy (a) in Moscow (b) in the U.S.S.R.?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. (a) 49 persons; (b) see (a).
2. (a) 23 persons; (b) see (a).


NEW VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOLS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many new vocational schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from June 1, 1961, to date?
2.	What is the total student capacity?
3.	What is the total cost of these projects?
4.	What is the federal government's share of the cost?
5.	How many new technical schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from January 1, 1964, to date?
6.	What student capacity has been added in the period January 1, 1964, to date?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. There were 441 new schools; 313 additions or alterations to existing schools to a total of 754.
2.	261,736 new student places have been provided.
3.	$826,343,390.
4.	$482,227,486.
5.	96 new schools; six additions or alterations to existing schools to a total of 102.
6.	64,480.


RETRAINING OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many completed their training under the Retraining of Unemployed Workers Plan during the year 1964?
2.	How many completed their training under the Retraining of Unemployed Workers Plan during the year 1965, to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. 20,850.
2. 5,914 as of March 31, 1965.


REPORT OF DORION COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: On what date does the government anticipate receiving the report of the Dorion Judicial Enquiry?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Chief Justice Dorion is presently working on the preparation of his report. He has not, as yet, indicated when this work is expected to be completed.

May 13, 1965
Questions


FARM MACHINERY SYNDICATES, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: 1.	How many farm machinery syndicates have been established in Saskatchewan since the adoption of this legislation?
2.	How many have been established in the constituency of Moose Mountain?
3.	What are the total amounts of the loans in each case, i.e., Saskatchewan and Moose Mountain?


Harry William Hays: 1.	13.
2. 0.
3. Saskatchewan, $71,106; Moose Mountain, Nil.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, CREELMAN, SASK.
Mr. Southam: Has a decision been made to build a new post office in the village of Creelman, Saskatchewan and, if so, will this be built under the 1965-66 winter works program?


Hon. Ren6 Tremblay (Postmaster General):: The Post Office Department has not requested the Department of Public Works to construct any new postal premises at Creelman, Sask, This office is in the category of offices where the Postmaster is responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, TORQUAY, SASK.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 421
Mr. Southam:: Will a post office be built in Torquay, Saskatchewan under the 1965-66 winter works program?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: The Post Office Department has not requested the Department of Public Works to construct any new postal premises at Torquay, Sask. This office is in the category of offices where the Postmaster is responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment.


AUTAIR HELICOPTERS LTD.-DENIAL OF FEDERAL CONTRACTS
Mr. Martineau: 1.	Has the government adopted an Order in Council or issued any directive, or other instruction to Treasury Board, placing Autair Helicopters Limited on a prohibited list; preventing this company from obtaining any new government contracts?
2.	If so, what is the reason for such action?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to answer both parts of this question in a single reply. On January 7, 1965 I asked the Secretary of the Treasury 
Board to delay any consideration of any proposal respecting Autair Helicopter Services, Ltd., until the matter could be referred to me as Minister of Transport. I took this action because certain allegations of a serious nature regarding this company had been made to me and I felt that these allegations should be looked into carefully, and that in the meantime it would not be prudent for the Government to give any additional contracts to this company. I did not feel there should be any interference with existing contracts unless the investigation of the allegations should make such action necessary in the public interest.
The preliminary examination into this matter convinced me that there should be a full examination of the files of the Department of Transport and related agencies. The Cabinet accordingly concurred in the view I had taken and the Treasury Board was advised that the Cabinet had concurred on March 11. Special counsel was retained to examine the files of the Department. This examination is now virtually completed and consideration is being given to what the next appropriate step should be.
Meanwhile, on May 6, the Air Transport Board issued order No. 4222 disallowing certain tariffs published by this same company in an effort to secure a contract from the Government of Ontario because the statutory declarations of the company contained information which, in the opinion of the Board, was false and misleading. I would be glad to table a copy of this order of the Air Transport Board.
Apart from the record of the Cabinet decision referred to in this answer there is no order in council, directive or other instruction to Treasury Board. In view of the fact that it has not been customary to produce Cabinet documents in response to motions and in view of the fact that I have given the substance of the decision in response to this question, I hope, when we reach motions for papers, or when we reach them on an occasion when the hon. Member who has the motion standing in his name is here, the hon. Member, who is a Privy Councillor and who will appreciate the point involved, will be willing to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Fisher:: Who made the allegation? [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be possible to get the unanimous consent of the
May 19, 1965

House to have the documents that were tabled by the Minister of Transport regarding his announcement made an appendix to Hansard, so this information will be available to all Members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be agreeable to me, sir, if it is the wish of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above see appendix "A".]


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No projects other than minor maintenance are planned by the Department of Public Works during 1965 for the harbour at Port Elgin, Ont.


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


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Department of Public Works plans to extend the existing ladders in the harbour at Kincardine, Ontario, and carry out minor maintenance during 1965.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, RIDGETOWN, ONT.
Mr. Danforfh: 1.	Have negotiations been concluded by the government and the Municipality of Ridgetown, Ontario, for the construction of a new post office?
2.	When is the estimated date tenders will be called for the construction?
3.	On what date is it estimated that the construction will be completed?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Yes.
2.	Fall, 1965.
3.	Fall, 1966.


R.C.M.P. MONITORING OF TELEPHONE MESSAGES TO LIBERAL MEETING
Mr. Coaies: Did the R.C.M. Police arrange to monitor certain telephone messages which the Ontario Young Lib-
Orders for Returns
eral Federation invited from Soviet Premier Alexie Kosygin, Cuban Premier Fidel Castro, Chinese Premier Chou En-Lai and North Viet Nam President Ho Chi Minh and, if so, were the invitees made aware of such arrangements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.



QUESTIONS ASKED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Since January 1, 1964, what goods were sold from the Point Edward naval base (itemized), to whom, and for how much?
Return tabled.


CONVICTIONS AND EXECUTIONS FOR MURDER
Mr. Matheson: Commencing with the year 1946, and concluding with the year 1964, what was (a) the number of executions, if any (b) the number of convictions for murder (c) the percentage that (a) bears to (b), and (d) the homicide mortality rate per million population?
Return tabled.


SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS LET IN B.C.
Mr. Deachman: 1.	In each year since 1950, what has been the total of contracts let to British Columbia shipyards by the federal government for shipbuilding of all kinds?
2.	For each year since the inception of the shipbuilding subsidy program what has been (a) the total of contracts let in British Columbia yards to which the subsidy was applicable (b) the total amount of subsidy paid by the government under item 1?
3.	What is the current value of contracts in British Columbia yards uncompleted but approved and what is the estimated subsidy thereon?
Return tabled.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	How many royal commissions has the government appointed since the 22nd of April, 1963?
2.	What is the name of each commission so appointed since that date?
3.	What is, in each case, the purpose of such royal commission?
4.	Who is, in each case, the chairman of such royal commission?
5.	How many members compose, in each case, these royal commissions?
6.	What is, in each case, the basis of their remuneration?
7.	How many secretaries, assistants or clerical employees does each such commission have?
8.	What is the cost to date of each commission?
14S4

May 19, 1965
Motions for Papers
9.	How many of these commissions have to date submitted a report, either to the Government or Parliament, and is such report, in each case, interim or final?
10.	How many other royal commissions has the government announced its intention of appointing?
11.	How many more royal commissions does the government intend to appoint?
Return tabled.


TENDERS FOR PART 1 OF BUTTRESS AIRPORT, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many tenders were received by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for part 1 of the former Buttress Airport, 400 acres, located south of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the name and address of each tenderer, and the price offered?
3.	Who was the successful bidder?
Return tabled.


TENDERS FOR PART 2 OF BUTTRESS AIRPORT, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many tenders were received by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for part 2 of the former Buttress Airport, 205 acres, located south of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the name and address of each tenderer, and the price offered?
3.	Who was the successful bidder?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Motions Nos. 28 and 30 are acceptable to the Government. Motion No. 31 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of the Provincial Government. I understand that motion No. 29 is to be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand it is agreeable to the House that the first two motions as mentioned carry without reservation, and that the third motion be carried subject to the reservation as expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: I understand that motion No. 29 is to be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.


John B. Stewart: I ask that notice of motion No. 27 be called, and that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH BANK OF CANADA RESPECTING MONETARY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Rondeau:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and written instructions con-
[Mr. Martineau.l
cerning the monetary policy of the country, exchanged between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada since January 1, 1960.
Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is of a confidential and privileged nature; therefore this motion is not acceptable to the Government. I understand that the hon. Member is not prepared to withdraw it; therefore 1 would ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING RAILWAY SUBSIDIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Transport and the President of the C.P.R., Mr. R. A. Emerson and the President of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon in 1965, regarding the needs of the two railways for a subsidy from the federal government to meet increased costs of labour and the inability of the railways to increase their freight rates.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of contracts which Canadair (Montreal) has received from the Government of Canada in each of the past ten years, indicating the products purchased and the value of the contracts for each year.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all communications, letters, telegrams, etc., between the Minister of Justice and the correctional organizations, such as the Canadian Corrections Association, John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, etc., in the years 1964-65 with reference to the decision of the Department of Justice to build its special security institutions.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence since May 23, 1964, exchanged between the Government of Saskatchewan and any Minister of the Government regarding the Federal-Provincial Vocaltional and Technical Agreement scheduled to expire on March 31, 1966.
Motion agreed to.
May 19, 19G5

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. McIntosh:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any and all memoranda, reports and letters relating to complaints of faulty workmanship, poor construction and failure to complete work at the Richmond Gardens Project, Richmond, British Columbia, a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation operation, including reports of investigation conducted into such complaints.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think there must be some confusion; the two motions which were referred to are not the first two on the order paper. Motion No. 22, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, asks:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any and all memoranda reports and letters relating to complaints of faulty workmanship, poor construction and failure to complete work at the Richmond Gardens project, Richmond, British Columbia, a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation operation, including reports of investigation conducted into such complaints.
I have discussed this motion briefly with the hon. Member, who put the motion on the order paper. Unfortunately he has been absent for a most regrettable but understandable reason. I must admit at the outset that a number of complaints have been received from purchasers of houses in the Richmond Gardens, and that those houses were constructed by the Consolidated Building Corporation. A very substantial volume of correspondence has resulted.
I have examined some of this correspondence, and I am of the opinion that the motion cannot be accepted because it would not be in the public interest to file correspondence relating to what has taken place between home purchasers and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Such correspondence deals with possible defects which might well be the subject of litigation, and it involves matters which are really matters of concern between the purchaser and the builder. In several cases action is pending or action is threatened in the courts.
On the same day the hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek put his notice of motion on the order paper a question was asked on the same subject by the hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac. The answer to that question appeared while the hon. Member for Swift Current was in the west. I might perhaps remind hon. Members of its terms. I said that each complaint, that is each complaint received by the Corporation,
Motions for Papers
has been carefully investigated by officials of the Corporation with a view to assisting the purchaser in obtaining the satisfactory completion of his house. Wherever warranted the house was visited by a representative of C.M.H.C. and a special examination of the construction was carried out. All faults listed by the owner were checked to confirm whether or not the construction was defective. Subsequently the Corporation took steps to ensure, as far as possible, that the builder would carry out the necessary remedial work. Where National Housing Act funds were involved holdbacks were retained, and some of these holdbacks-


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how long the Minister intends to continue with this statement. If he is debating the matter, should it not be transferred for debate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the significance of the remark made by the hon. Member, but with my explanation I am hopeful that the hon. Member will withdraw the motion.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State stood this particular motion. There was no necessity to have this explanation, because nothing was done with the motion except that the Parliamentary Secretary asked that it be stood.


John B. Stewart: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly my intention to ask that this motion be allowed to stand today. I may inadvertently have asked that No. 22 be called, although I do not think I did. I think perhaps, sir, it was your expression concerning the first two motions that led to the present situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that clear, and I am confident that in the light of my situation, with litigation threatened or pending and of the answer that has been given to the question put by the hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac, the hon. Member will give consideration to withdrawing this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. Member consent to withdrawing his motion?


Mr. Webb:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

May 19, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon, J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): I wonder, sir, if I might have the consent of the House to table a statement which is being made at the present time in the Ontario Legislature by the Premier of Ontario, a supplementary statement by the Minister of Highways and a statement being made at the same time by the President of Canadian National Railways, announcing that the Government of Ontario and Canadian National Railways have reached an agreement for the establishment of commuter services in the Toronto area.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This co-operative arrangement has been made possible by the opening of the new hump yard on Monday and the removal of a lot of the freight traffic from the lines which would be used by the commuter service. It seemed to me that hon. Members might wish to have copies of these statements tabled so they would be available for the information of hon. Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. John Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question in connection with his announcement today of a rail commuter service in the surrounding area of metropolitan Toronto. Would the Minister bring to the attention of the President of the C.N.R. the possibility of providing new station facilities and parking lots in the areas which are going to be serviced?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to do that, sir.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it a fact, as reported in the press in the United States

and Canada, that a Canadian intervention was made in Viet Nam in an attempt to persuade the Hanoi government to undertake negotiations during a pause in the bombing, and that this request was summarily rejected? Will the Government give the details leading up to this action by Canada, and explain whether it was undertaken as a suggestion by Canada or at the request of the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I saw the story on which my hon. friend's question is undoubtedly based, and I can say that there is no foundation for that story. However, as I have indicated before, Canada along with other countries and on its own has urged restraint on all parties concerned, has suggested a cease fire, and has suggested that discussions should take place. We noted with gratification the statement made by the President of the United States on April 7, when he said that his Government would be pleased to enter into negotiations at once without any pre-conditions.
While I say that this recent story has no foundation in fact, I should add that last week I was asked to indicate to the Prime Minister of Canada that the President of the United States wished the Prime Minister in particular and the Government of Canada to know that the Government of the United States was about to embark on a pause with regard to bombing in North Viet Nam. I can only take this request, transmitted to me when I was in London, that the information be given to the Prime Minister, as an indication that his suggestion in this regard was one that had been carefully noted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Minister informed the House yesterday that he had a very senior member of his Department down in the Dominican Republic, I am wondering whether the Minister could now give a report to the House as to just what is going on down there in view of these very conflicting press reports?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam had spoken to me
May 19, 1965

and given me notice of his intention to ask a question along this line today. I asked him, because of a call that we are expecting some time later today, whether he would not find it more convenient to put his question to me tomorrow, and this he agreed to do. I know without asking my hon. friend that he will also readily concur in this.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would be very interested in hearing the Minister's reply tomorrow, but if this message, which he indicates is so important, comes through before six o'clock perhaps he might ask leave to revert to motions and make an announcement.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I want to ask whether his attention has been drawn to two articles which appeared in the press, one being an article in the Ottawa Citizen of May 13 by Greg Connolley and one in yesterday's Globe and Mail by George Bain, which said there is a crisis in the national centennial administration, that there is a good deal of dissention in the administration, with reports of impending resignations, and that there has been a breakdown in communications between the Minister and the Commissioner to such an extent that the Minister has not had the Commissioner in his office since before the beginning of the year.
In view of the fact that all of us in the House are extremely anxious that the centennial project shall be an unqualified success, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake to look into the situation and see what steps need to be taken to make sure that this administration is able to effectively carry on its program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that situation and discuss it, initially at least, with my colleague the Secretary of State, who is not in the House at the moment because he is indisposed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Expo '67 is under one Minister and the national centennial administration is under another Minister, 22620-95
Inquiries of the Ministry would give some thought to the advisability, because of the close relationship between the two programs, of putting them under a single Minister in order to bring about a greater degree of co-ordination.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that suggestion also, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in considering the questions raised by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, would consider going even further and setting up a special committee of this House where we could actually question the officials, who are apparently talking, and find out precisely what is happening in the centennial commission. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to immediately setting up such a special committee of the House?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the estimates covering this activity will be before a Committee, I hope very shortly, and perhaps that would be an opportunity to go into the question. Meanwhile I think I had better carry out my initial responsibility and make the investigation myself before we consider this matter further.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence and concerns the fact that today at the R.C.A.F. base at Penhold, Alberta, the final pilot graduation ceremony is being held as Harvard training reaches its end after some 25 years of service to the R.C.A.F. and Canada, as it yields to the pressures of progress and the more modern approach through the ab initio jet training program.
My question relates to the fact that at this historic wings parade, for the first time in the 20 year peacetime history of the station, I am informed that all news media are barred from direct coverage either by reporting or photography. Will the Minister of National Defence state why this most restrictive action has been taken, and could he not cause this order to be rescinded?

May 19, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this prohibition, if in fact it does exist. I will investigate the matter at once.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Following a request made to him about two publications of the dominion bureau of statistics, namely the Review of Employment and Payrolls and the Review of ManHours and Hourly Earnings, the minister wrote me that they are not published in French yet.
Will he take steps so that all the publications of the dominion bureau of statistics will be published in both languages at the same time?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as these reports do not appear in the two languages I will certainly make the necessary investigation and see what can be done.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance; I regret I have not given him notice, but I do not think he will require it. Is it the intention of the Government to announce in the very near future an increase in per capita grants to universities, perhaps up to a minimum of $3 per capita, in light of the fact that increasing numbers of universities are being forced to increase their fees, in addition to the two major universities which made such an announcement yesterday?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, if and when it is the intention of the Government to make an announcement on this or any other subject, I think the Government should do it in its own time. I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. friend's question in advance.


Michael Starr: Time is pressing.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, knowing of the interest of the Minister of Public Works in safe driving on all our highways, I wish to address a question to him which is of national concern and does engender a certain amount of parochial pride in the Member for Kootenay West. Does the Minister know that the City of Trail has just completed 3,807 days of fatality-free driving owing to the excellence of the city's administration and the self discipline of the population? Has the Minister any comment to make on this Canadian record?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure it would take considerable time to think up the proper words to apply to this significant question and occasion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I should like to raise it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


WHEAT-NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO RED CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the Minister able to confirm newspaper reports to the effect that negotiations are now going on in Hong Kong between Mr. William Riddle, Assistant Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, and Chinese officials for a large sale of wheat to China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friends opposite from the prairie provinces will be very glad to hear that this is so.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether these negotiations, which we understand have been going on now for several days, are completed. Further, I should like to ask him whether the announcement of any additional sale or agreement for sale will be made from Hong Kong or from Ottawa.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as usual I shall announce the sale that has been made by the Canadian Wheat Board, carrying out its responsibility under its act of Parliament.
May 19. 1965


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question. Will these wheat shipments be through the west coast ports and the port of Churchill rather than out of Halifax?


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ADDITIONAL MATTERS SUGGESTED FOR AGENDA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on information which was given to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister to the effect that the federal-provincial conference, initially called for the end of this month might be postponed. The Prime Minister said that one of the reasons involving the desirability of such a postponement was that some provinces wanted additional matters listed on the agenda. Would the Prime Minister inform the House what province or provinces wanted additional matters put on the agenda, and what additional matters were involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that until the agenda is decided it would be inappropriate for me to give information to the House as to any new proposals, because some of them may be agreed upon and some may not. However, I shall be glad to let the House know the details of the agenda as soon as it is agreed upon.


INQUIRY AS TO MEMBERSHIP AND CABINET CHANGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that the historic riding of Vancouver-Burrard is to be eliminated, and accordingly would he either confirm or deny the persistent rumours circulating in the corridors of power that the youngest member from British Columbia, the present Member for Vancouver-Burrard, is soon to become the youngest member of another place; or can he say whether in the alternative, he is to be known as the hon. Member for Shangri-la?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, because of my inability to give a satisfactory answer to that question perhaps it can be taken up at ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question. Since the Prime Minister is in a mood to talk about this matter, I wonder whether he could ease concern in the Province of Saskatchewan over his plans for the appointment of the provincial Minister of Agriculture to the other place so he can take a place in the Cabinet. What is concerning us is which portfolio he will be taking, Minister of Trade and Commerce or Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Could the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to appoint shortly a successor to the former Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, who has to stay home to deal with racing matters?


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is in elucidation of the statement which he made in reply to question No. 425, in which he stated that because of certain allegations of a serious nature affecting Autair Helicopters Limited he had recommended a further contract be not awarded to that firm. Could the Minister say from whom or from what source these allegations came?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under investigation, it is a matter which may come ultimately before the Air Transport Board, and I think it would be fairer to everyone concerned if I were to say nothing about these allegations.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Member for Villeneuve raised a question as to the availability of French speaking staff at the Ottawa district office of my Depart-

May 19, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry merit's Taxation Division. May I say that of a total staff of 247 employees at this office, 87, or just over 35 per cent, are French speaking and are available to serve the public as required. At the public information counter during the busy periods there is a full time staff of 15, and 11 of these employees are French speaking. During the slack periods there is a full time staff of three, at least one of whom is French speaking. In addition, 11 French speaking employees are conveniently available among the regular office staff located directly behind the information counter.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister as a follow-up to the question I asked on Monday, at which time the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin, Essex East) said he would look into the matter and give an answer as soon as possible. My question related to the P.F.A.A. payments for 1964 in the three Prairie Provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to receive a question that can be answered, and I thank my hon. friend for his patience. He did ask a question on Monday regarding P.F.A.A. payments during the year.
I am advised that payments to date total approximately $10,500,000. There were, however, a number of areas where unfavourable weather conditions delayed harvesting operations and field inspections could not be completed until this spring. Included in these areas are some 500 townships in which municipal officials originally indicated that no inspection would be required, but due to a late harvest with reduced yields they subsequently requested field inspection. When these claims were finally processed the total amount of payments exceeded the estimated cost by approximately $1 million. Arrangements have now been made to transfer funds to the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund, from which payments are made, and it is expected that the cheques will be released early next week.


INCREASE IN COST OF GROUND FEED GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Minister been made aware of the fact that the new federal labour standards code, which places feed mills under federal jurisdiction, will increase the cost of ground feed grains by an additional 20 cents per 100 pounds to our Nova Scotian farmers?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that fact, and will have to check into the matter to see whether it is accurate.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make inquiries in order to ascertain whether changes may be made to alleviate this situation, so that farmers not only in Nova Scotia but in other parts of Canada as well will not be required to pay this exorbitant increased rate?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, my arithmetic would not indicate that this increase will take place, but I will be pleased to look into the situation.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Now that it has been officially announced that the Ford Motor Company at Oakville is transferring its purchasing department to Detroit, can the Minister advise the House whether similar transfers will be made by other motorcar companies in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I saw the announcement regarding the Ford Company. It is my understanding that for the time being, at any rate, none of the other motorcar manufacturers have similar intentions.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister give the House some assurance that this type of transfer from Canada to the United States will not become applicable to labour services or capital, and at the same time tell us whether or not the grants announced by the right hon. Prime Minister will be applicable to Canadians moving to Detroit, for example?
May 19, 1965


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that, important as this question obviously is, it should be placed on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister inform the House as to the progress that has been made in investigating the bombing of the United States consulate in Montreal? Will the Minister also inform the House whether Canada is going to pay the repair bill reportedly estimated at around $15,000 in respect of this damage supposedly done by Canadians to that building belonging to our esteemed neighbour?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
in view of the fact I have tried on a number of occasions to elicit an answer from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in respect of this subject, I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister to prevail upon the Minister of Labour to re-assemble the Industrial Relations Committee so that the work of that committee in respect of the stewardship of the maritime trustees can be completed, and to enlarge the scope of its terms of reference so that it can call for witnesses and papers.
Right Kon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that on Monday I asked a question which the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin, Essex East) said
Inquiries of the Ministry he would take as notice. I hoped I would receive an answer to that question today. My question was, considering the good progress being made across Canada by the electoral boundaries commissioners, is it the Government's hope that redistribution will take place prior to the next federal election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are so many imponderables in that question it would be very difficult for me to answer. I admit there are many reasons for hoping that this procedure might be completed before the next general election, and perhaps in some places many have reason for hoping that it will not.


Mr. Valade:: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Mary will take his seat for a moment and we will come to him immediately after the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I think a supplementary question should be allowed before another regular question is asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: That is the procedure the Chair has always accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must take its own responsibility in this regard.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question to that directed to the Prime Minister, and I hope he also will take his responsibility in this matter. My question relates to the reasons redistribution should be implemented before the next election. Is one of the reasons that the Government wants to change the returning officers in all ridings before the next election? I should like the Prime Minister to give us this information.


An hon. Member:: You are done, either way.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not know why the Prime Minister refuses to answer, in view of the fact that you allowed the previous question, and the Prime Minister replied.

May 19, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member is aware of the citation in Beauchesne that states that a Minister is not compelled to answer.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked my question under the authority of citation 178 of Beauchesne which states that a Member can ask a question as to the intentions of the Government regarding legislation. I am asking the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to have recourse to this procedure, and change the returning officers. I think that question is perfectly in accordance with the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the question is very interesting, in the opinion of the Chair it is not extremely pressing at the moment.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it true that Canada has taken steps in the United Nations to bring communist China to negotiate for world disarmament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that this suggestion is not in accordance with the facts.
We stated some time ago that any agreement on disarmament could not be reached without the support and participation of China.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister now in a position to announce that policy which was very definitely announced outside of this House, in Vancouver, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis), relating to the fact that millions are now available to small boat harbours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I imagine a question on

that subject would come within the purview of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he is now in a position to announce this new policy involving the availability of millions of dollars for small boat harbours?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the text of what the Parliamentary Secretary is reported in the newspapers as having said. I would prefer to take a look at the text before answering. However, no decision has been taken by the Government concerning the policy on small boat harbours.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will investigate the impropriety of a mere Parliamentary Secretary, with or without election and redistribution pressure, making a definite policy announcement outside the House as this Parliamentary Secretary did?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, because of his own experience, should not refer to a "mere Parliamentary Secretary".


Thomas Miller Bell: That is why I spoke in that way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is basing his question on a press statement and I will be very glad to inquire into the accuracy of the remarks attributed to my Parliamentary Secretary.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question is prompted by his having made a statement today concerning one matter referred to in the Speech from the Throne. In view of the fact that more than 30 items of specific legislation are promised in the Speech from the Throne, can the Prime Minister say whether it is the Government's intention to get these items on the order paper in the next little while, so we can know what the plans are for the rest of this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that we should get them on the order paper as quickly as possible, and we are attempting to do that.
May 19, 1865


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether a statement might be made at an early date as to what are the items of highest priority among the 30 or more listed in the Speech from the Throne?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to be a very sensible suggestion. Perhaps there could be discussions first among the House leaders as to the Government's intentions in this regard, and then a statement could be made to the House.



INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
DELAY IN REFUNDS TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I asked the Minister of National Revenue what the reasons were for the withholding of income tax refunds to the railway running trades. Does he have that information?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I gave that answer a few days ago.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister given further consideration to exempting irrigation districts from the 11 per cent sales tax on construction materials?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think this one has been fairly well covered, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has been able to gather any information regarding my question of last Monday concerning a memorandum which was distributed on Parliament Hill last Saturday afternoon by officials of his department?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I
Inquiries of the Ministry regret that I did not mention this yesterday. The pamphlet "The facts About the War in Viet Nam" that had been circulated by some who took a position similar to that of the delegation, was erroneous in a number of particulars. Officers of the Department thought that these errors should be dealt with and a commentary was prepared to this document. I will be happy to see that the commentary is tabled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the Minister for agreeing to table it. May I ask him first of all whether this memorandum purports to be an answer to the document entitled "The Facts About the War in Viet Nam" put out by the Victoria, B.C., branch of the World Federalists? Second, is it the practice of the Department of External Affairs to issue unidentifiable memoranda in answer to documents put out by organizations of private citizens?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say quite frankly that I think it should not be the normal routine for this to be done. I accept full responsibility, however, for its having been done in this case. I cannot say that it was solely in response to the publication of the Victoria branch of the World Federalists, but I can say, having read that document that there were many inaccuracies in it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister has accepted responsibility for the distribution of the document, will he also accept responsibility for the very biased and in some cases inaccurate statements contained in the document?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is difficult for a Minister to accept bias, but I do accept full responsibility for the statements made in the commentary.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he had a chance to read the newspaper reports of the attack by the U.S.S.R. newspaper Izvestia on one of our military attaches in Moscow, and what has been the Government's action in this regard?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have since seen the report to which my hon. friend
May 19, 1965

House of Commons Procedures directed my attention. As I indicated yesterday, the Government has the fullest confidence in our military attache, and the Government repudiates the allegations made in the article which appeared in a publication in the Soviet Union. The information I have had placed at my disposal with regard to the distinguished Canadian soldier in question, who serves as our military attache in Moscow, leads me to say that there is no basis whatsoever for these allegations.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Government contemplating a protest to the Government of the U.S.S.R. in view of the fact that Izvestia may be a Government organ or a semi-Government organ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When our Ambassador was at the Foreign Office in Moscow on Monday his attention was directed to these allegations against the military attache in question. The Ambassador, of course, because he had had an opportunity to assess the work of our military attache, took issue at once with the suggestions made by the Foreign Office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1. That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity

to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow;
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such reauest.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are today beginning the consideration of two most important resolutions. The resolution we are first formally considering and discussing and the other resolution which was put on the order paper at the same time are very closely linked together. They are separated, indeed, on the order paper for the sake of convenience of discussion by the House, and I hope to explain something about that later. Together these two resolutions constitute, I believe, the most thorough proposals for the reform of the procedures of Parliament which have been considered by Parliament. And Parliament is our fundamental institution.
What we do with these proposals is therefore of great significance, I believe, for the
May 19, 1965	COMMONS
future of our country, as it is for the working of our parliamentary institutions. In one sense it is domestic housekeeping, the amendment of our own rules, and it is being put forward as domestic housekeeping in no partisan way, because every Member of the House, whatever party he may represent, has his own interest in the rules of the House and its procedures. But while it may be domestic housekeeping in that sense, in another sense I believe we will be making a basic decision as to how Parliament shall do the business of the country. It is basic because, important as these resolutions are in themselves, this decision will also, I believe, be a point of departure in the conduct of parliamentary business and therefore in the operation of democracy itself.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The issue before us, as I see it, is whether we are prepared to make this fundamental part of our free institutions adequate to the needs of our times, which are very different indeed from what they were in times when so many of our parliamentary rules were first promulgated. We are not merely discussing a particular measure for the people of Canada, a specific law which is passed and then put into operation, after which you go ahead in the House with something else. We are, in effect, discussing the prospects and the possible operations of Parliament in many fields and in respect of many measures. We are deciding whether the process of political decision in Canada can be reformed, can be brought up to date so that it can, in the future, deal with the vastly more complex, more numerous measures which are needed because of the changing nature of our growing country.
We are deciding whether Parliament shall do its part, its vital part, in helping Canadians to make the progress we wish to make in this latter half of the twentieth century, which has already proven to be so much more dynamic than most of us could have foreseen 15 or 20 years ago.
We are all the servants of an institution that is not only the very centre of our national life, but is also a venerated part of our inheritance from Great Britain. We are dealing with the most respected of the institutions of free men anywhere: Parliament. You will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to give the House the benefit of the history of Parliament over the ages. The subject is one upon which, many years ago, I gave a course of lectures at the University
DEBATES	1475
House of Commons Procedures of Toronto. It is a rare opportunity therefore for me to revert to nature. I am not going to talk about Magna Carta and go from Magna Carta to Simon de Montfort, who is sometimes considered the father of our Parliamentary institutions, and the 700th anniversary of whom we in the English speaking parliamentary world are celebrating, through the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century when Parliament first became an instrument of democracy.
I should like to quote a few words of a highly perceptive and very learned scholar, Sir Ivor Jennings, who wrote of Parliament-
I suppose his book on Parliament is the classic in its field:
It has fought kings and dismissed them. It raised up an army to destroy a king and was itself destroyed by its army, only to recall another king and to rise up again on the site of its own destruction. It has been modified and reformed to meet the changes of centuries.
The issue before us then, in 1965, is whether we will continue the process by continuing to make changes in our own time and in our own way. The functions of the House of Commons, as Bagehot said, are to express the mind of the people. It reflects our own democracy, "warts and all". It does this by the nature of its composition, as a cross section of all our people and by the action and reaction between the Government side, who are responsible for proposals, and the opposition side, who are responsible for criticism. It functions, in other words, in defence of and criticism of the Government and the Executive. The essence of democracy is that the defence and the criticism are equally important. They are together the process by which guidance and warning is given to the direction of our national affairs. The House of Commons is where the primary defence of Government policy must be made, and where the primary attack on Government policy should be made.
In this confrontation of Government and Opposition, Parliament fails when the former degenerates into tyranny and intolerance and the latter into friction and fury. The first decline becomes apparent, and dangerous, when a majority rides rough-shod over the strong views, sincerely held, of a minority; the latter when a minority by purely obstructive tactics and by abusing parliamentary processes, tries to frustrate the will of the majority when that will has been made clear after adequate discussion.
Parliament is also important, or it certainly should be, in that it is the focal point for the
May 19, 1965

House of Commons Procedures democratic discussion going on in the country as a whole. It reflects the national will and provides the groundwork for the next national decision through a general election. To quote Bagehot again, as all serious discussions of the British style political system must quote him,
The House only goes where it thinks In the end the nation will follow; but it takes its chances of the nation following or not following; it assumes the initiative.
Parliamentary institutions are today under greater criticism than ever before. The critics forget that no better method has yet been found to channel the expression of the popular will into political action. Several others have been and are being tried, which may even be more suitable to the form of society to which they are being applied. It is a mistake for us who have had the benefit of thousands of years of history and experience in the working of parliamentary institutions to think that they can be applied at once to societies which may not be ready for them. There may be other forms of government which, in certain circumstances, are more suitable to the circumstances of a particular time and place. Indeed, in our own time, in respect of the developing countries with little or no parliamentary experience, other methods may have seemed better because they seemed to be efficient in making the trains run on time and keeping beggars off the streets. But in a society where all men have learned to read and many or most of them to think, and enough to appreciate, even dimly, the glorious gift of personal freedom in a responsible society, these political improvements on our kind of parliamentary democracy have ended in the crashing of dictators and the destruction and tragedy that followed.
The problem of parliament today is how the duty of democratic leadership, which is the high duty we all take upon ourselves when we seek election to this House, how that duty can be most effectively discharged in the legislative body in the new and complex circumstances of today. It can be discharged by us as parliamentarians only as the duties of people in any other organization can be discharged efficiently, by working through a group-we call them political parties-and by organizing our time to match and achieve the purposes we have accepted.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Again, in the words of Sir Ivor Jennings: The necessity of maintaining order in the conduct of business and of dealing with the most 
pressing subjects has compelled strict adherence to
a program.
These words were written in 1939, and they are in the past tense because they were written about the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. We have been slower in Canada to accept the same necessity. In these matters we are more traditional, more cautious than the Mother of Parliaments with all its long history. For various reasons, the need for change has seemed to be not quite so pressing for us. But surely we cannot go on any longer denying the necessity for such change, if we are to discharge what I have described as our duty of democratic leadership in this nation. The issues before Parliament are now too many and too demanding to permit of a horse and buggy approach to their solution.
If this House is to be the proper focal point, as I have described it, for the democratic debate of the country's business it must do more, and in order to do more it must organize itself more effectively; it must plan the distribution of its time among the many matters which come before it, or which ought to come before it-and some do not come before the House at all because we fail to plan the distribution of our time effectively.
The first resolution before us has this to say in the first paragraph:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business.
This very first paragraph links full opportunity for discussion with the effective dispatch of business. This is a combination which I am sure we all wish to maintain. We put this resolution, and the subsequent one, before the House not in order to lessen debate or stifle criticism. On the contrary, we do so in order to make debate more effective and more realistic by providing more time for major matters and major criticisms-for criticism not of infinite detail which could, in many cases, best be carried on in a committee, but for criticism of the major issues which concern the public, points on which this House as a whole, sitting as a House of Commons, can provide the initiative for broader debate in the country.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) said in this House on March 9, of last year, as reported in Hansard at page 719: "the people of our country-ask for efficiency in the operation of this institution." Simi-
May 19, 1965	COMMONS
larly, we must do more of our work in committees, not because the authority of the House as such should be lessened but because that is the best way in which all private Members can make a full contribution to the enormous range of issues involved in the complex affairs of our country today, thereby increasing the authority of Parliament by strengthening the position of all its Members. That is the spirit of the proposal we are putting forward in this resolution and in the resolution which will follow.
I have no illusions, and I do not think other Members have any illusions, that merely by changing our rules and making our procedures more effective we can ensure that Parliament itself will be more effective and that its business will be conducted in a better way. It would be just as unrealistic to assume that because you have rules and someone to apply those rules in a hockey game, the result will be a clean game, not a rough game. But while the rules and the authority behind the rules cannot ensure this, without rules and without the authority behind the rules-to continue the hockey analogy-there would not be much likelihood of having a better and more effective game.
These proposals are not new-born proposals for which my colleagues and I claim exclusive paternity. They reflect in large part the agreed ideas of the committee representative of all parties in the House over which you, Mr. Speaker, have presided. We all, I think, wish to acknowledge our debt of gratitude to you and to the Members of the committee and the subcommittees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should certainly like to pay my own sincere tribute to the work of the committee and the subcommittees-work participated in and directed by Members of all parties. Where these resolutions go further than the committee recommendations is on essential points, as we consider them to be, upon which the committee did not achieve unanimity, but with regard to which the need for decision is, I believe, generally recognized. On these points we have not attempted to be either unique or original. Building on the work of the committee we have tried to adapt to Canadian circumstances the experience of other parliaments and especially of Westminster.
The major objectives of the procedural proposals are to arrange time for debate on
DEBATES	1477
House of Commons Procedures specific proposals so as to increase, not decrease, the role of the private Member and to strengthen the authority of Mr. Speaker. The first of the two resolutions in which these proposals are presented is being considered by the House sitting in formal session. It includes proposals on which we think big decisions are required and we believe they should be taken now by the House. The second resolution, which involves a large number of detailed amendments to standing orders will, we hope, be considered in the House in Committee of the Whole. We hope decisions will also be taken in Committee of the Whole on that resolution. This Committee of the Whole procedure will enable Members to propose other amendments in these various standing orders which are referred to in the second resolution, and there may undoubtedly be improvements made to them as the result of discussions in committee. I know some Members have made suggestions in the last day or two. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who presided so effectively over one of the subcommittees has mentioned changes he would like to see and there will undoubtedly be others. I think these possible amendments could be considered by the House-and I hope they will be-on an entirely non-partisan basis.
It would of course be improper for me to discuss at this time the details of the second resolution, but I hope the House will permit me to refer to some points in it because they affect the significance of the proposals in the first resolution. For example, when we discuss the number of days allotted to supply we have to bear in mind the proposal in the second resolution to lengthen the hours of sitting.
The first resolution calls upon Members to accept the extremely important principle that the House must apportion its time among the proposals brought before it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Recent years have produced a tremendous increase in the demands made upon Parliament for legislation. I have been doing some research work myself, with a good deal of help, and have been amazed at the statistics of increase in legislative and other kinds of public business in Parliament in recent years. In particular-and this is the main reason, I suppose, for the legislative increase-the Government no longer legislates, as it once did, more or less exclusively with respect to the traditional fields of federal activity, defence, external affairs, trade and the criminal law.
1478	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures Increasingly now the government is called upon to legislate in the whole field of social welfare. I think that in itself accounts for a great part of the increase in our legislative and governmental business in recent years. The necessity for a full consideration of major items, such as the Canada Pension Plan, places very great pressures upon the time available for other legislation.
So the first resolution, Mr. Speaker, attempts to deal with this problem by making proposals for the arrangement of the time of the House to provide time for debate and then the opportunity for decision. It will enable the House to program its business and also, I would hope, to plan time for regular recesses. After asserting the need for allocation of time, this first resolution then makes two concrete proposals. The first one-I am sure all hon. Members have had an opportunity to study it and I should perhaps apologize for repeating the details of the resolution-is that there should be a detailed consideration of the estimates by referring them to standing committees-all of them.
I should add that a proposal in the second resolution will modernize the structure of the standing committees and increase their number from 14 to 21. This will greatly improve the opportunity for Members to make a thorough-going examination of the administration of government in all its forms; and the reduction of the number of Members of the committees-I will come back to that later-will perhaps make this easier than would otherwise be the case.
With the tremendously increased opportunity or consideration of public spending by standing committees, when the real work of scrutiny will be done it will no longer be necessary to spend so much time in the House on this examination. Indeed, if the same amount of time was spent in the House on this examination we would be overlapping and duplicating, the work of the committees would be made less and less important and more time would be spent in the House going over that work again. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that we should limit debate on supply to 36 days in the House. The time spent in considering supply in standing committees is, of course, additional to this. In choosing this figure of 36 days we have taken into account the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on March 9, 1964 as reported at page 718 of Hansard, when he said:
Now with regard to this House, I think that with six supply motions available in each session,

DEBATES	May 19, 1965
with the exception of the first, which would last two days, the others might be restricted to one day. For after all, in the course of one day on a motion to go into supply there would be available to all parts of the House the opportunity to debate the amendment.
In attempting to increase the importance of the work of committees, something we think to be essential, we are obviously not agreeing with a remark I read in a magazine the other day on committee work in public administration when the writer said that committees usually consist of "the unwilling picked from the unfit to do the unnecessary". That, I am sure will not be the experience of committees in the future and it has not been the experience of committees in the past. Another remark, in the same critical sense, about committees was that "the committee approach to decision-making is often less an organizational device than a spiritual necessity". Quite the contrary, I believe, Mr. Speaker; though I do admit that committees have on occasion been at least a political convenience and perhaps once or twice a political necessity.
The specific wording of the proposal to refer estimates to committees and limit the length of supply debates is modelled closely on Standing Order 18 of the Parliament at Westminster. However, the British House allocates only 26 days for supply debates, while we allow 36 days; and the British examination in detail of estimates is conducted by a single estimates committee, while we will use the appropriate committees among the 21 that we propose to set up to deal with separate departmental estimates.
I should also repeat that the 36 days in the House will, if a proposal in our second resolution is adopted, be considerably longer in terms of hours than has been the experience of the past, and the experience of the recent past. Of course, the abolition of the dinner and luncheon adjournments, which is a proposal that will be made, will also mean that the 36 days are the equivalent of about 49 days with the present hours of sitting. Since the average length of supply debates during the sessions from 1957-58 to 1964 was 48 days per session, the proposal, if adopted, actually gives a slight increase in the average length of the supply debates in the House, in terms of hours.
I have not included in the figures used in reaching this average of 48 days the total for the immediate preceding session, where 90 days were spent considering supply. In my view this 90-day length of supply debate
May 19, 1965

House of Commons Procedures sitting time. At present we begin a typical day at 2.30 p.m., break off at 6 p.m. for dinner, resume at 8.00 p.m., and adjourn the House at 10 p.m., a working period totalling 5J hours. If we subtract from this 5J hours the hour for private members' business, and another hour for routine proceedings, the time left for Government business in a day can total only 3J hours. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the House will share my belief, that 3i hours is not sufficient to allow opportunities for debate by private Members, or by enough private Members. And I believe that 3J hours per day is not enough for this country's legislation in the present circumstances.
I must acknowledge again, Mr. Speaker, that this important proposal to increase the sitting time of the House was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. In the same debate last March, as reported at the same page of Hansard, page 718, he said:
I think we should add to the time of sittings. I know that this is not very popular but you cannot always be popular if you want to get effectiveness and efficiency.
We can all say "Amen" to that; at least those of us who are in politics can. That, by the way, is my own interpolation; it is not part of the quotation. The Leader of the Opposition went on:
I should like to see the time of sitting added to, and in particular that we would sit between six and eight o'clock. At that time private Members' hour could be effective. As it is today the House starts at 2.30. Following the question period we have an hour and a half or so on matters of Government business and then we go into private Members' hour between five and six. Would there be any interference with private members if a similar provision were brought in as exists in the British House today? Between six and eight o'clock many Members speak. Others are away having their dinner. To assure that no unfair advantage is taken of the Government there is agreement that during that period of time no divisions will take place and no votes will be called. If we followed this suggestion-
-said the right hon. gentleman-
-we would gain many hours of the time of Parliament for Government business while not in any way sacrificing the rights of private Members.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in our resolution we have adopted the suggestions made by the right hon. gentleman. We propose that private Members' hour should be moved into part of the time made available by abolition of the dinner adjournment. Except on Wednesdays and Fridays, private Members' hour will thus be held between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. To avoid the taking of unfair advantage of

which my right hon. friend spoke, we propose that no vote shall be taken during the periods of the former dinner or luncheon adjournments if five Members in the House object.
Another proposal to which favourable reference has also been made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition is the limitation of the question period prior to orders of the day to 30 minutes duration. In effect, Mr. Speaker, we propose to apply to other days of the week the procedure which has been found, I believe, effective on Wednesdays. This suggestion was made by the present Leader of the Opposition when, as Prime Minister, he said on November 26, 1962, as reported at page 2011 of Hansard-


Michael Starr: Didn't you have any ideas of your own?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but I am trying to be very non-partisan in this matter and to associate the Leader of the Opposition with these proposals in order to acknowledge his paternity for some of them. I have associated him with three; all the others we will have to take responsibility for ourselves. At that time the right hon. gentleman said:
As far as questions are concerned, it is not for me to suggest, but I think that the number of these questions could be greatly reduced; and if we were also to have a self-denying ordinance that, under ordinary circumstances, we would not go over half an hour on questions before orders of the day we would save 15 full days in an ordinary session without, as I see it, losing any ground that might be gained through questions or in any way interfering with the rights of the Opposition.
I am sure we are all in agreement with that. I apologize for making these references when the right hon. gentleman is unavoidably absent from the Chamber.
Although I believe my right hon. friend is correct and that the question period could be made more effective if it were shortened, I also feel it is necessary that the question hour be a regular feature of House business. There have been occasions during the debate on the report of a committee when we have lost the opportunity for a question hour and for other routine proceedings. This is so, as hon. Members know, because under our existing rules motions are among the first items to be considered each day, and the proposal for concurrence of a committee report is considered under motions. If the committee's report should be controversial, debate may continue, as it has continued, and in recent years, for a number of days, and the question period,
May 19, 1985

which comes after motions, is never reached. We had that experience in the last session. To meet this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, we propose that if a motion has been considered for a day and then adjourned for further consideration later, it shall be taken up thereafter under Government orders; that is to say, after the normal question hour.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Half hour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: House of Commons Procedures suspecting that many of them are being used, not because of any genuine disagreement with your ruling, but for other purposes.
During the entire period from 1867 to 1905, there were no appeals at all against Speakers' rulings. From 1906 to 1930-24 years-there were only 17 appeals. After 1930, appeals increased, but only moderately. Between 1931 and 1957, a 26 year period, there were 89 appeals. Of these, ten took place during the pipe line debate in 1956, and some of us will recall those appeals. From 1957 to 1962, the number of appeals diminished-only three being recorded during those years. In the 1962-63 session, six of the Speaker's rulings were appealed. In 1963 your rulings, Mr. Speaker, were appealed on 12 occasions, and in the last session they were appealed 11 times. I must add, Mr. Speaker, that of the 23 appeals against your rulings in the last two sessions, only two rulings were reversed.
I think this analysis makes it clear that appeals against Speakers' rulings have increased drastically in recent years. I believe that if the Speaker is to be given that control over the procedure of the House which is necessary for its effective functioning, his authority in this regard must be strengthened. The most effective way to do this is to abolish appeals from the Speakers' rulings, as is the situation in Westminster. This will, of course, still leave open to possibility, if a Member feels strongly enough, of a censure motion against a Speaker-and that has happened at Westminster-or even of a substantive motion, on proper notice, to modify the rule established by the ruling.
At the same time as appeals from rulings of Mr. Speaker are abolished, the Government proposes to modify the rule concerning appeals from rulings of Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole. In future, appeals will be taken from these rulings to Mr. Speaker, but not, as at present, to the House or beyond the Speaker.
That final proposal is also designed to strengthen the position of the Speaker. There is one other proposal which I believe would have the same result, and that is that one hour's notice be given to Mr. Speaker of any question of privilege, except one arising during the course of proceedings in the Chamber. Of course, there can be no question of interfering with a Member's right to rise during a debate on a question of privilege at any time.


Michael Starr: Provided it is a legitimate one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure it would never be illegitimate.


Michael Starr: Ask the Minister of Transport.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In raising a question of privilege subsequent to a debate, or in respect of something which arises out of something outside of the House, we propose that the Member of the House raising the question of privilege must give the Speaker an hour's notice before the opening of the House.
I think this proposal would be useful 'in order to offset the great recent increase in the number of questions of privilege. During the 1957-58 session, 23 questions of privilege were raised; in the 1953 session, 25 questions of privilege were raised; in the 1959 session, 29 questions of privilege were raised; and during 1960 there were 51. From the normal figure of about 30 questions of privilege per session, the number has risen sharply during the past two sessions. Eighty five questions of privilege were raised in the 1963 session, and 111 questions of privilege in the 1964-65 session. During the first six months of that session, which was the last session, Members rose on 375 occasions claiming that they were bringing questions of privilege to the attention of the House.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Government, Mr. Speaker, has given very serious consideration and is continuing to give consideration to other means by which the Speaker's authority can be strengthened. We recognize, as all Members must recognize, that your authority, Mr. Speaker, depends in large measure upon your independence and the recognition of your independence. It is important that the person who occupies your position, Sir, be not merely independent-and we acknowledge your own independence and integrity in presiding over us-but also that he appear to be independent, and that there be no suspicion of pressures upon that independence.
One possible way of underlining the Speaker's independence from the party forming the Government-this idea has been put forward before and has been discussed over the years-is to make the Speakership a permanent office. However, this can only be achieved under our present electoral system at the expense of permanently depriving the electors of some Canadian constituency of the voice of their elected representative. I hasten to add that suggestions have been made that an artificial constituency of Parliament Hill might be created for this purpose and the
May 19, 1965	COMMONS
Speaker would become the Member tor Parliament Hill. This possibility has its attractions, but it seems to me that it also has its disadvantages, and I am not sure that it would achieve the objective it was desired to achieve in putting it into effect. This device would certainly transform the Speaker from being an equal with his fellow Members over whose deliberations he presides into-I say this in no derogatory sense-some type of parliamentary functionary, and I suggest that the change might even reduce the prestige of your office.
I mention these possibilities only to indicate that the Government, in forming its proposals to strengthen your authority, is conscious of the need for preserving and for making obvious your independence from party or faction in this House. We believe that our present proposals will go far to emphasize your authority and independence and we think that that is as far as we should perhaps go at this time, although we are giving consideration to the other idea I have just mentioned.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I believe that these proposals will have a number of very important effects if they are adopted by the House. They will increase the opportunities for participation by private Members of Parliament in legislative and other business; they will greatly expand the opportunities for critical examination of public spending; and they will strengthen the authority of the Speaker and, I believe, increase the effectiveness of the House without diminishing in any way the right of Members to discuss adequately and fully before decisions are made, a right which must be protected under our free parliamentary system. If they are put into effect I believe they will reconcile or go some way toward reconciling the right of discussion with the right of decision. We think that the proposals in the two resolutions are good. They may be better after we have considered the second resolution. There may be amendments made which will improve them, but we think they are good. We think they will improve the procedures of the House of Commons and we put them forward for that purpose and for that purpose only and in no partisan spirit. I hope they will commend themselves to the House.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does the Prime Minister intend that these proposed rules will be incorporated as permanent rules
DEBATES	1483
House of Commons Procedures at once if passed by Parliament, or will they be instituted on a trial basis for a period of time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I gave my own view. The intention of the Government is that they should be adopted in the normal way without any time limit. I know there will be some who will think that we might try them for a year or two years. I think that would be a mistake because it would give the impression that we were not very certain of what we were doing and that they were only of a temporary character, which I think would be a disadvantage. But I think it could easily be made an order of the House, or it could perhaps be embodied in the resolutions or some other action could be taken, to make certain that at the end of one or two sessions, let us say, Parliament should examine what it had done two years ago.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Leader of the Official Opposition having a previous engagement which he could not forgo, in view of the fact that this is a very important matter which will affect all of us in the future, and in view of the fact that the time before five o'clock, when private Members' hour begins, is limited, I wonder whether I could have the consent of the House to adjourn the debate until tomorrow so that the Leader of the Opposition can follow the Prime Minister in the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman adjourns the debate he will lose his right to speak. I wonder whether he could not adjourn it for the Leader of the Opposition, because the hon. gentleman may wish to speak later.


Michael Starr: That is my intention. I should like to have consent to adjourn this debate for the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the motion to adjourn the debate being made on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, but before it is made, in other words before the Prime Minister sits down, I wonder whether I might put one question to him. As he is aware, this is a debate with the Speaker in the chair and there is not the same opportunity to get things clarified that there will be when we go into Committee of the Whole on the second resolution. Therefore I wonder whether he would clarify one point in regard to the proposed new Standing Order 15A. My question relates to the suggestion that any item of business or stage thereof
1484	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures may be referred to the proposed Business Committee. Does the phrase "item of business or stage thereof" mean that only one stage can be referred at a time, say second reading or committee of the whole, or does it mean that the whole gamut of the legislative process with respect to a particular matter can be so referred?
While I am on my feet there is one other question I should like to ask. Is it implied that this reference would take place before such a stage was entered upon rather than in the middle of such a stage?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will recall that the details of the operation of the Business Committee are to be worked out by a special committee, but I believe it was the intention of the resolution that the Business Committee should arrange the time for all stages of a bill or a piece of legislation or a motion to which time allocation applies. That is the intention of the resolution. Does that answer the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure that it does and I am not sure that that is the plain meaning of the word "stage". But what the Prime Minister has said leads to another question. He said it is clear from the resolution that a special committee is to work out these details. May I ask him, therefore, whether the special committee of 22 Members referred to in paragraph 1 is also to have the right to work out the new Standing Order 15A which is set out in paragraph 2? I am afraid I did not read it that way. If the special committee can make some adjustments in 15A, it will certainly shorten the debate in the House. Could we have that clarified?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am going to ask the House Leader, who has worked on the matter and is more familiar with all the details, to answer the question.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, it was not the intention that the special committee referred to in paragraph 1 of the resolution should deal with standing order 15A, but I take it that the question raised by the hon. Member implies that he would wish that to be done. Am I correct?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, my question implied the hope that the reference of a matter to the Business Committee would be on the basis of a stage at a time rather than having several stages referred all at once. If the matter before the House, for instance, were second reading, do we have to decide at that

DEBATES	May 19, 1965
point what is to happen all the way through, or do we decide merely for second reading and leave the various other stages until later?


George James McIlraith: It can be either way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am even more concerned about subclause (5) which deals with a situation in which the committee is not unanimous and where the Minister can move an order. It will make a great deal of difference it seems to me as to whether or not the Minister, in moving that order, can restrict the period of debate for all stages of the legislation through the house in the one motion or whether his motion will deal only with one stage at one time? Can the Minister clarify that point?


George James McIlraith: It may be an order dealing with the whole or any part thereof. It may be either way. If I may pick up a word used by the hon. Member, he used the word "restrict". It is a matter of programming the business of the House, although it is quite possible this may be a restriction as well. I hope he does not mind my picking up his use of the word restrict, but I did want to do so in order that he would have a better idea of what we propose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understand the Minister correctly, in the event of the Business Committee not being in agreement it would be possible for a Minister of the Crown to introduce time allocation in one motion covering all the stages of a piece of legislation through the House?


George James McIlraith: That would be possible if notice had been given in that form four days earlier.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have no objection to the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) asking for the adjournment on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) so that he can follow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). However, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister some questions during the next five minutes? He referred to the time used by the House in Committee of Supply during the last few years. I believe he stated he excluded the last session, which had an extraordinary number of days. I should like to ask him if in arriving at the statistics he used he included those sessions that were terminated as a result of dissolution? I, too, have some statistics here which do not agree exactly with what the Prime
May 19. 1965

Minister stated. However, we have taken out those sessions when Parliament was dissolved, because really it is not fair to include them as full sessions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My figures did exclude the last session, as I think I said. However, I shall have to compare my figures with those of the hon. gentleman in order to ascertain whether or not we were operating on the same basis.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There were two sessions during the last six years when there were less than 30 days, which terminated as a result of dissolution. I am wondering if they were included?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the sessions of 1957-58; 1958-59, and so on until 1962-63 were all included and I got an average of 48 days per session covering those years.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that by unanimous consent this debate stands adjourned?


Michael Starr: It is understood that the Leader of the Official Opposition will have his place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Alfred Dryden Hales: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Estate Tax Act to provide for payment in appropriate cases of estate tax assessment by instalments so as to reduce the number of "forced sale'' liquidations of estate assets, which in many cases have resulted In the loss of Canadian ownership and control of Canadian business enterprises.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those of appreciation to the Members of this House who so kindly allowed this motion appearing in my name to stand on Monday last and to maintain its position on the Order Paper, in view of the fact I was unable to be present. I feel quite sure, too, Mr. Speaker, that it was not stood because of the fact it was my motion, but rather because of the great interest which hon. Members have in this particular motion.
I should like to outline briefly the intent of the motion. It is simply this, to ask the Government to give consideration to the payment of succession duties over a greater length of
Estate Tax Act
time and, in worthy cases, by the instalment method. The Estate Tax Act, which came into being on January 1, 1959, was designed to replace and bring up to date the old Dominion Succession Duties Act. There was, however, one section of this new Act which I feel escaped the attention of the Members in this Chamber. I refer to the provision for the payment of succession duties. As the Act now stands, in ordinary cases, these taxes must be paid within six months after death. I realize that under section 16 of the Act the Minister may make allowance for delayed payments where there is hardship. We know, too, that this Ministerial discretion is very seldom, if ever, used. It is very broad in its meaning. What constitutes hardship? The Ministerial discretion is very seldom used to postpone the payment of succession duties. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Minister be given more discretionary power. I think my position in this regard is well known to all Members of this House. I am simply suggesting to the Government that the Estate Tax Act should be amended to take care of this situation.
I introduced this motion on another occasion just about a year ago. I do not intend to take the time of the House to go into the details which I outlined at that time, but will simply review a few of the arguments that were put forward the last time this motion was discussed. There were, I believe, five Members who spoke in support of the motion. It was well received. They were all in agreement, but unfortunately a vote was not taken nor was the matter referred to a committee. I hope at the conclusion of this hour for private Members' business a vote will be taken or the matter referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee.
Now, what were some of the observations of other speakers that were made the last time I introduced this motion? The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance intimated that my thoughts in this regard would have been much better directed to the Provincial Government. He said that three Provincial Governments, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, levied their own succession duties under what is called a succession duties act.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
But the other seven provinces, the majority of the provinces, receive the amount of the succession duties by way of rebate under the federal Estate Tax Act. So I would say, in answer to the suggestion which was made at that time, that the Federal Govern-
148S

May 19. 1965
Estate Tax Act
ment should take the lead in this regard and make it possible for these death duties to be paid over a longer period of time, by instalments if necessary.
This is a matter which should be brought before a dominion-provincial conference. According to the best information I can obtain it has never been discussed at such a conference. Perhaps I may quote from Hansard of June 10 where the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is reported as saying:
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have indicated that there is to be consultation between the provinces of Canada and the Federal Government on tax matters. There has been mention of setting up a committee for this purpose, and personally I would be very much in favour of it. I believe estate taxes and succession duties should be one of the subjects to be discussed with the provinces at this time.
I also indicated on May 6 that it is extremely difficult for the Federal Government to make changes to the present Estate Tax Act because it affects the incomes of seven of the provinces to whom we rebate 75 per cent of the tax. Nevertheless, I am very much in favour of consultations taking place, and I am sure they will take place and that the particular problem raised by the hon. Member in his resolution will be discussed at that time.
About a year has passed by since then and to the best of my knowledge such a discussion with the provinces has not taken place.
Another observation made at that time was that the Department of National Revenue has received no evidence to show that the payments of these duties imposed hardship on many people-in other words, that businesses would have to be sold in order to pay the estate tax. We were told it was difficult to find evidence of hardship. I can only say that the hon. gentleman has not been around very much. He could not have talked to men in business or discussed this question with many firms or individuals. If he had done so he would certainly have heard a great deal of evidence that the need to pay succession duties within six months constitutes a real hardship. I should like to illustrate this hardship by mentioning one case with which I am personally familiar. I refer to a farmer who, with two of his sons, worked for years building up a herd of pure bred cattle. Unfortunately the father died without leaving a will and within six months the mother also died. So the two boys were left with an obligation to pay a large amount of succession duty within six months. They did not have the cold cash with which to do this, yet they were bound to raise the money because the

Minister would not certify that hardship was involved. What did they do? There was no alternative. In order to pay the taxes they had to sell by auction the herd which had taken years to build up. This is one example of the hardship of which I have been speaking.
I am sure there is not a Member of this House who, in talking with manufacturers and others in his community, has not been told about the worry that exists in connection with the payment of succession duties. I know of one industry where two sons were in business with their father. They had built up a tremendous business. Not many months ago they sat down to figure out with an accountant and a lawyer just what the situation would be should any member or members of the family die suddenly. What would be involved in the payment of succession duty? They decided there was only one answer and that was to sell the business. A United States corporation then came in and bought this thriving Canadian industry. I mention this to show how the estate duty legislation gives rise to cases where many privately owned small businesses and corporations are sold on fire sale terms to outside interests just because succession duties would have to be paid within six months.
I know it is difficult to secure authentic information of these cases because in many of them private and confidential matters are involved. I wrote to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and asked them if they would supply me with a list of firms which found it difficult to raise money for the payment of succession duty within the time allotted and I will quote part of the letter I received in reply. It said:
While many of our members in public practice know of cases where businesses have been sold because of the looming threat of estate taxes, because of the professional relationship with their clients, they are unable to divulge the information you require.
That is the situation in many of these cases. Accountants and others concerned are not allowed to divulge the information. In this regard last year the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) had this to say. He brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the case of an immigrant to Canada who had established a successful food business and built up successful export sales department. Because it was such a good business, various people offered to purchase it, using the argument as an inducement to sell, that he would be in trouble raising succession duties. In the
May 19, 1965

Estate Tax Act
words of the hon. Member for York-Scar-borough as reported on page 4174 of Hansard for June 10:
They have been using, very successfully, arguments related to our estate tax laws, and have pointed out to him that with the way the company is growing and in view of the shortage of liquid assets his family would have to make a forced sale if something should happen to him.
Later on, the same hon. Member continued:
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the department does not have any evidence of forced sales, but I suggest to him that the problem is a real one, one which a number of firms are meeting before they are actually faced with the situation. They are doing so in two ways, either by selling the enterprise to an American operator or by forming a public company in Canada and thus jeopardizing control of the company which the enterprise of the family has created.
That is another example, and it was supplied by an hon. Member from the party across the way. I could go on. The hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) speaking on this same subject as reported in Hansard of the same date at page 4173 said:
I have a recollection of one case in which the widow of the deceased proprietor wished to carry on the business. She was unable to do so because her husband had not provided means whereby the succession duties could be paid. She was unable to carry on the business because of this demand for the payment of succession duties. An appeal was launched under section 16, but she was not able to obtain the discretion of the Minister, so there was hardship involved.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I could go on giving illustrations of cases where hardship is involved to private individuals, individual businesses, corporations, etc. In February of 1964 the Financial Post wrote an article headed, "In 5 years, these firms have been 'sold foreign' ", They listed all the Canadian companies that had been sold, and who bought them. In most cases they were bought by American corporations. Although I have no proof of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe that many of these companies were sold because they were concerned about raising succession duties. I am afraid that I am taking up some of the valuable time of those who I am sure wish to speak on this very important subject, but I do want to cover one or two other little points.
I have been most encouraged by the interest that has been aroused in the suggestion I am making to the Government. This has been demonstrated by editorials that have *been written and letters sent to me or which
have come to my attention. At the risk of being repetitious, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read one or two of them, and I hope I will be pardoned for anything in them that is of a personal nature. The first quotation is from the Windsor Star. This article was written after I introduced this notice of motion last time. It was written by one W. L. Clark and is headed "Nub of Problem". The article says:
Alfred D. Hales, Conservative M.P. for Wellington South, puts his finger on the nub of the succession duties and estate tax problem. He told that many small businesses have to be sold to raise the cash to meet the death taxes.
The duties have put more than one modest business on the block. A man builds up his firm, then he either has to liquidate before death to provide the taxation money or his heirs have to sell to pay the taxes.
The succession duties and estate taxes are driving small businesses into the arms of big corporations.
I do not think there is any doubt about that:
That may not have been the original idea, but that is how it works out.
Mr. Hales may not get far with his plans to have some redress afforded families. But, a lot of people will wish him luck in his battle against the ghouls.
I have here another article which appeared in The Independent, which I will not take time to read. Then there is a very interesting letter which I received from a business that grew in a very modest way. I would like to read this letter, Mr. Speaker:
Some time back the writer read an article in the Globe and Mail regarding succession duties, estate taxes, etc. You are so right. To me, any firm which necessarily must sell out for this reason should have cause to be supported by the Government.
We have worked very hard and enjoyed seeing our business grow. We started in the basement of our home. Our family and help stuck together and our present shop is 90 feet by 320 feet, and we have taken over another shop 40 feet by 80 feet. We have approximately 140 on our payroll.
I happen to know that business, and it is one of the most thriving businesses in western Ontario. They are very concerned about this situation of succession duties and how it will affect them. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the high cost of dying is not just a title for a book; it is a fact staring us all in the face. The total tax on business in Canada is among the heaviest in the world. Business carries more than its fair share. It seems most unfair to me that it should be further saddled by succession duties, payable in cash six months flat from the time of death. As only 1.5 per cent of the national revenue is derived from

May 19, 1968
Estate Tax Act
this source, I think we could put up a pretty good argument as to why death duties are necessary at all. However, they are with us and until the Government withdraws them, this is what we are confronted with. I sincerely hope that the report of the Carter Commission will come forward with some suggestions in line with those I have made. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that several representations and briefs were put before to the Carter Royal Commission and also the Government. The National Council of Women of Canada, the Estate Planning Council of Toronto, and the Canadian Bar Association-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be just one minute. The organizations I have mentioned have shown great interest in this matter and have presented briefs to the Royal Commission on Taxation. I hope that many other Members of this House will take the opportunity to speak on this very important matter with which the Canadian taxpayer is confronted. I hope my motion will come to a vote before six o'clock, but if not I hope the Government will see fit to refer this matter to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, one "Hales" with delight the reintroduction of this motion, and I take advantage of this opportunity to express my wholehearted support for its spirited purpose. It is interesting to see the sort of non-partisan attitude on this question in the House this afternoon, because I think the Members who are here are interested in getting some action along the lines suggested in the resolution.
Here we have a Progressive Conservative Member from Ontario, who I am very glad to know attended a college of mine about two generations after I did, supporting this resolution and working for the persons it would affect. I am quite glad, as a revolutionary Socialist from the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, to do the same. I know that my friends behind me take the same attitude, and I can see that right across the aisle is a Member of the Liberal Party just dying to give his support to this resolution. I think we are practically unanimous on the spirit and purpose of the resolution, and I think it is a very interesting state of affairs in this private Members' hour.

I agree with the previous speaker when he said that the present Act, the regulations and the degree to which ministerial discretion is exercised are not sufficient to meet the circumstances under which we live today. They are greatly different from those that we, I was going to say "enjoyed" but I should possibly say "experienced" 20 years ago and before that. There are several reasons for this. Many farmers, small industrialists and small businessmen gave hardly a thought of the effects of the Estate Tax Act, because taxes were not levied to the same extent in those days. But the circumstances have changed, in my opinion, because at the present time a much greater investment is required to finance a farm and the equipment necessary to operate that farm; a much greater investment is required to finance a relatively small industry. I know from my own experience in this connection that what one could do 50 years ago with $5,000 takes possibly $30,000 or $40,000 nowadays. Another reason is that there has been a great increase in land values in recent years, farmland values, industrial site values, and so on, which have meant that many persons who years ago never gave a thought to the effects of the Estate Tax Act are faced today with the possible loss of their land, business, farm or industry. This I know from personal experience, and there have come to my attention quite vividly in the last five years many cases of hardship created by the application of the law and regulations as they now stand. The law and the regulations are not drawn in the spirit that we should do all possible to continue to promote the family farm, small industry and small business. We are inclined nowadays, Mr. Speaker, to worship bigness. We worship it in all directions. If a thing is large we bow down and almost adore it. We fail to realize that it is this other element in our society that keeps it healthy and-I say his although I might get ribbed a bit about it-that keeps alive the spirit of, shall I say, free and private enterprise that is responsible to the community which it serves, o (5:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see I even have applause from the Government side of the House on that score, Mr. Speaker. On the whole I think they generally agree with me. Sometimes we disagree on certain aspects of the application of our policy, though not our objectives or our purpose.
May 19, 1965

I think that this is a subject which is receiving more and more attention from various organizations in the country. I know that farmers organizations and other organizations are concerned about the matter. It is also receiving more publicity in the press and is being discussed more than ever by various kinds of bodies. I suggest, in line with the suggestion made by the hon. Member who introduced the motion, that it would be a good idea to send this motion to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, where the Members of the committee would have an opportunity to study it and to call witnesses of various kinds-officials of the Department to explain the procedures, if necessary the Minister to explain the philosophy behind the present Estate Tax Act, representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representatives of farmers unions, of small business and of women's organizations.
It may interest hon. Members to know that this subject is discussed by women's institutes in quite small communities, and by people who 25, 30 or 40 years ago would never have dreamed they would be affected by the Estate Tax Act but who, owing to the circumstances I have mentioned and to other circumstances, now find they are faced with the possibility of losing a family farm or a small business or small industry. I suggest that women's organizations which are interested should be invited to come before the committee and tell their own story in their own language; they could explain how the Act affects their farms, industries or small businesses, and in this way they could present their ideas. Other groups may also wish to give their opinions.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this type of legislation can be greatly improved if we receive the participation of the Canadian people on a wide base, shall I say, in giving their ideas and so on. Then as a result of gathering facts and information from these various groups, the committee itself would be able to make some recommendations to this House. Then after that committee reports, a good foundation would be laid for a debate in this House, say at the time the estimates of the Department of National Revenue were being considered, or the estimates of the Department of Finance, whichever is judged the more appropriate.
However, Mr. Speaker, I have just risen to speak briefly and to express my wholehearted support for the hon. Member's proposal, because I know that on this question
Estate Tax Act
the hon. Member for Wellington South and the hon. Member for Kootenay West are two hearts that beat as one.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, since I do not wish to have the sad honour of killing this motion introduced during the hour reserved for private members' business, I will make but a few remarks about it.
At the beginnig of my comments, I must say that I am quite surprised that the old stalwart of the socialist party, who just spoke, is very happy that all parties in this house support this motion, since he and other members of his group always request greater action from the government while insisting that its sources of revenue be constantly decreased.
However, if the government must relinquish some revenue, I believe that it should be the revenue coming from citizens with modest means rather than that from those citizens who have a much larger income.
Personally, I have dealt on several occasions with the problem of small businesses which are unfavourably affected by the Income Tax Act when, for example, they must pay the sales tax within 30 days after the contract of sale of some items, while they get paid for the same goods six months or a year later. This places small businesses in a very difficult situation, since they must bear for six months or a year the cost of a sales tax which has not been paid back to them.
I must say that frequently some businesses and industries must sell their assets because they cannot meet the requirements of the department. In this case, it is about the same thing. Even if the minister has a discretionary power, under the act, the persons concerned must go through the whole series of officials of the Department of National Revenue, first at the local level, then at the regional level and finally, if they are lucky, the office of the deputy minister. If they are unlucky, and if they know their member of parliament, it will be the latter who will try to intercede with the minister in order to protect his constituents.
In my opinion, it would be much better if the act would contain a section stipulating that the officials themselves have the authority to grant to estates the right to act along the line of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales).

May 19, 19S5
Estate Tax Act
He mentioned a while ago some businesses which fall into foreign hands. I appreciate that it is sad, but it is equally sad to see family, personal and individual businesses fall into the hands of large companies, even if they are Canadian.
Individuals who worked hard all their lives, who saved money by tightening their belts so as to make a success of some industry or business see-or do not see because they are dead-that business or that industry fall into the hands of extremely wealthy corporations which take over small businesses, often at give-away prices.
These large limited companies have always been treated with particular consideration by our governments. Under our system, legislation has, in most cases, been drafted with a thought for those foreign companies or their Canadian branches. One has only to take a good look at the legislation passed by this parliament to notice that, in many cases, these limited companies, these big and extremely powerful corporations receive every consideration from our governments.
I think it is to the credit of the hon. member to have had a thought for the small business, the individual and the toil of those persons who have worked hard all their life to set up a business and, especially, their successors who, in most cases, would be interested in carrying on the work of their predecessors but who, because of the long arm of the estate tax, are forced to surrender the business to foreign hands or to larger companies.
I merely wanted, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member and tell him that we agree with him. I hope the government will not consider necessary to refer the study of this motion to the banking and commerce committee but will take a decision immediately, or as soon as possible, since it is evident that this problem exists and that it can be settled to the satisfaction of everyone only through government action.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that motion moved by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) deserves serious consideration because it directly affects trade, the automobile industry, the auto parts industry in Canada as well as similar industries in the United States.
When we ask for the production of all correspondence, letters or other documents exchanged between the Canadian government and the American government since January 1, 1964, in connection with the agreement

providing for duty-free trade within the automobile industry, it is because we feel that the house would find it useful to become acquainted with those agreements between the Canadian and the American governments, and because it would enable the house to realize that it is true that we live in a system under which the small ones become even smaller and in greater number.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder whether he is now discussing the resolution under consideration, that is, resolution No. 4 introduced by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) concerning the advisability of amending the Estate Tax Act to provide for payment in appropriate cases of estate tax assessments by instalments.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was not in the house at the beginning of the debate and, of course, I did not have the right item. I will therefore restrict my remarks to resolution No. 4 introduced by the same hon. member, namely:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Estate Tax Act to provide for payment in approprite cases of estate tax assessments by instalments so as to reduce the number of "forced sale" liquidations of estate assets-
As the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux) mentioned, it is true that in the past this Estate Tax Act has forced many small family businesses to go into liquidation following the death of the father or of one of the shareholders or some member of the family. We have seen it happen on many occasions, not only in the province of Quebec, but especially in that province in the lower St. Lawrence area, for instance, where small family concerns have been forced out of business.
Not very long ago, I happened to talk with the directors of a Quebec business, the Thi-bault firm, in Megantic county. This is a fine and thriving business run by a close family made up of the father and all his sons. The sons are worried because if their father were to pass on, they are the ones who would be stuck with the problem of taxes and they would have to sell their industry.
Obviously, we must accept our responsibilities and save Canadian enterprise, small businesses and especially family concerns.
Mr. Speaker, this motion surely deserves the attention of hon. members and,
May 19, 1965

Estate Tax Act
especially, of the government, if we want to assure our entrepreneurs and the owners of our small industries that their firms will not cease to exist following the death of one of the owners or of one member of the family.
We fully support the proposal made by the hon. member for Wellington South and we will not prevent its adoption by prolonging the debate; on the contrary, we will allow everyone to have his say on the advisability of improving Canada's tax legislation to protect the interests of small industrials and enterprises, in other words, the interests of the Canadian people as such. [Text]


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by the versatility of the hon. Member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette), and he has just demonstrated very effectively that ability in this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: That was just changing gears.


John Hollings Addison: I heard someone say that he just changed gears. The hon. Member for Villeneuve and I have something in common-we are both in the automobile business.


David Réal Caouette: That is the best line in the world.


John Hollings Addison: It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that there are two things we cannot escape, death and taxes. In this particular motion before the House we are dealing with two insurmountables at the same time.
The hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) introduced this motion during parliamentary debate last year, and I think his arguments were well founded. From the expression of hon. Members who have spoken on this motion in the House, and the weight of public opinion, there is certainly some reason for endorsing his position. However, I should like to point out that at the present time 75 per cent, or three quarters, of succession duties are paid to the provinces, and only 25 per cent of the money raised in this area of taxation is held by the Federal Government.
The Carter Royal Commission report is expected to be brought down this fall, although we had hoped it would be available earlier, as indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in his budget address. When that report is received I suppose we will know what will happen in respect of this 22620-96
division of this tax money, but it seems to me that as a result of last year's changes in the Estate Tax Act, whereby we turned over three quarters of this revenue to the provinces, it is almost conceivable that sooner or later the Federal Government will completely vacate this field of taxation.
What we are talking about here in this motion is the possibility of the Federal Government legislating in a field in which it may or may not be involved after the report of the Carter Royal Commission.
I should like to point out that the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of April 22, as recorded at page 439 of Hansard, said this in regard to the Estate Tax Act:
I do not propose this year to introduce any amendments to the Estate Tax Act. We amended the Estate Tax Act last year, as you will recall, in a number of particulars, and I said that any material changes would now affect provincial revenues more than they would affect our own budget position.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I went on to say we felt action should be deferred on such changes of substance until we had seen the results of both the federal and provincial commissions of inquiry, and had consultations with the Provinces. That is still the situation.
As the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) pointed out, organizations and individuals have made presentations to the Carter Commission. When its recommendations are presented to the Government, and before a definite position is taken by the Federal Government, in all probability the matter will go to the tax sharing committee, which consists of the 10 Provincial Treasurers and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), because, as we realize, the matter has more to do with the Provinces than with the Federal Government.
Members of the House of Commons are justifiably concerned that because of the necessity of paying death duties there is the possibility that certain of our industries may fall into foreign hands by reason of a lack of cash available in the businesses in order to pay such duties. I should like to point out to the House that one of the recommendations in the budget this year was for the provision of a pool of capital in an organization to be incorporated as the Canada Development Corporation. The Minister of Finance had this to say about the new Canada Development Corporation, as found on page 434 of Hansard:
It would be the function of this corporation to share in financing the initial development or expansion of large scale industrial projects in Can-

May 19, 1965
Estate Tax Act
ada, and to provide financing, including refinancing, for large Canadian enterprises which might otherwise be led to seek funds outside Canada, with a consequent loss of ownership and control to non-residents.
This very important piece of legislation will be coming before the House of Commons and obviously one of the purposes is to provide capital in addition to the capital provided by other Government agencies, such as the Industrial Development Bank.
One thing that concerns me and a great many other Members, I believe, is the area of discretion with regard to the percentage of estate tax that can be charged by individual provinces. At the present time three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, have a different arrangement from the other seven provinces. It seems to me we must be very careful not to adopt an attitude which will induce a person to move from one province to another before he dies in order to reduce the amount of his estate tax. This is a consideration that not only affects the provinces but the country as a whole, because it is no longer necessary for people to remain here. They now have the opportunity of moving to what are referred to as tax havens, where they pay no succession duties and by this means they perpetuate their estates.
On the other hand, we have got to be very careful in Canada that this type of taxation does not destroy Canadian equity. I think we have done the right thing in reducing the personal income tax by 10 per cent in the present budget. This is something we are doing here and now. So far as death duties are concerned, as the hon. Member pointed out, people know what is going to happen and the best they can do is to try to prepare themselves financially so far as their estates are concerned.
In the proposal that the hon. Member has brought before the House he is suggesting that estate taxes be payable by instalments. In effect this would mean that we would be financing the provinces, in that we would be collecting the money and then turning it over to the provinces. This means that under the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Agreement we would in effect be lending money to the various provinces with no provision for the payment of interest on the money lent.
I should like to point out something with regard to large estates, and I refer specifically to two large estates, the Killam estate and the Dunn estate. When these

estates were assessed the succession duties were of immense magnitude and the moneys collected were used to set up the Canada Council. This was the source of the initial funds for the Council, and a very worthwhile purpose is being served.
With regard to preparing to meet succession duties I would point out that insurance is one method and providing liquid funds in a business is another, but it seems to me that as more and more businesses are becoming publicly controlled the individual has a better opportunity now to provide some assurance that his family will be able to carry on. I should like to end by referring to what I said on this matter last year with regard to the amount of such taxation. As found on page 2293 of Hansard of May 6, 1964, I said:
Today it is not necessary for someone to remain in Canada. Persons who build estates have the privilege of moving to an area in which there is no succession duty. I would agree with one of the earlier speakers, that there is today in Canada a process of liquidating family owned businesses in order to provide ready cash for succession duty purposes.
While this is true, Mr. Speaker, there are many more opportunities today for small businessmen to be able to prepare themselves for the time when these taxes have to be paid. While I support the principle of the motion of the hon. Member for Wellington South, I think that on balance we must wait for the report of the Carter Royal Commission and we must realize that we are talking about revenue which is now largely provincially controlled.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to this very worth-while motion. It may not be well known to those who have not studied this matter as thoroughly as the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), but the fact is that all pension schemes are now covered by succession duties. If a man dies leaving his widow with pension rights, it is assumed that the woman will live for 20 or 30 years after her husband has died, and all her pension payments are lumped together and taxed. This large sum of money is added to the estate and taxed on a theoretical basis, because it is not a liquid asset. The result is that in many cases the widow finds herself obliged to sell her home or farm or her interest in the small family business in order to pay these arbitrary taxes to the Government.
I know we go deep in the pot so far as taxation is concerned. Twenty years ago
May 19, 1965

$60,000 was almost an unheard of sum. I for one have never dreamed of having an estate of that size, if I live to be a thousand. But with the enormous change in the value of real estate today, the fact is that a modest home in Canada is valued at from $12,000 to $16,000 and if the wife has a pension of $2,500 or $3,000 a year it is assumed, according to the actuarial tables, that she will live for say another 25 years; and $75,000 is added to the estate. Then, if you add the $16,000 from the home to this estate, you find the estate tax people immediately going to your wife and asking her to make out a cheque for several thousands of dollars.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This situation becomes even worse when the assets of the estate are tied up in a family farm. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) would be the first to say that you need $40,000 to $60,000 of farm capital for the family farm. When the breadwinner of the family farm dies, the Government agents move in and assess this farm at its current value. The machinery is only valuable as farm machinery to be used on that farm.
I am sure that the legislators who introduced this Act in the first place were desperately seeking for money with which to run our many services. They had no idea that in this last decade the expansion in home estates and pension schemes would cause such serious hardships for widows and children. This expression "hardship", is a lawyer's expression; what is hardship to one person may not be hardship to another. If you take the average income of a poor fisherman, his idea of hardship would be entirely different from that of the wife of a university professor in one of our major cities, who may be used to paying perhaps $150 or $200 per month rent and maintaining a reasonable, middle class home.
Today we heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about the added burdens that bureaucracy place upon Ministers of the Crown. They have no time today to be deciding what is hardship and what is not, or to be going through a mountain of correspondence in this regard. Of course there will be a mountain of correspondence coming up. I suggest that for once we should be ahead of the pressure that is bound to arise in one form or another from our new social legislation. We are going to be forced to change this Act in any event so why not admit the necessity now and take this forward step? It is not going to cost the Govern-22620-961
Estate Tax Act
ment a great deal of money, but will relieve individual cases of hardship.
I see we still have time for a vote so I should just like to mention that the backbenchers in Parliament are always talking down sensible motions presented to them by private Members. We are always asking for the right to be heard. We are trying to streamline our procedure so that we can be heard. What is the sense in asking for the right to be heard if we do not follow that up by voting? Let us, for once stand up and use this machinery in forwarding to the Government this demand for a change and then it will be their responsibility.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: This is substantially the same motion that we debated during Private Members' hour on December 9, 1963. The hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) has, however, made a slight amendment to his original motion. He has inserted the words "the advisability of", after the words "consideration to", in the second line of this motion as it appears on the Order Paper. It now reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should give consideration to the advisability of amending the Estate Tax Act to provide for payment in appropriate cases of estate tax assessment by instalments so as to reduce the number of "forced sale" liquidations of estate assets, which in many cases have resulted in the loss of Canadian ownership and control of Canadian business enterprises.
The amendment has if anything, weakened the hon. Member's motion. I suggest it indicates some loss of confidence on his part, and I have no confidence in this motion whatever. I cannot support it. I just do not believe there is any section of the Estate Tax Act, as it stands by itself, that forces the sale of Canadian business enterprises to foreigners. I believe that such foreign takeovers result from other causes.
In 1963, as recorded on page 5618 of Hansard, I made the following remarks:
There have been some cases where the necessity ol paying estate tax and provincial succession duty has been cited as the reason, or additional reason, for selling a controlling interest in a company to foreigners or to a foreign company. This seems strange when one knows that any company with good management can easily make arrangements to pay the taxes due to both jurisdictions.
When one hears such talk he should consider whether or not an excuse is being given by an incapable or disinterested heir for his failure to assume an unexpected or unwarranted responsibility. I would say from my own experience that in almost every case of such a sale the real reason is that death has brought about an unusual circumstance. There has been a change of management or there has been no management left whatever.

May 19. 1965
Estate Tax Act
I would say from my experience that in almost every case of such a sale the true reason is that it was brought about through an unfortunate change of management, or the fact there was no management whatever. Often there is no person capable, in the line of succession, to carry on the business. Trust companies will not undertake to run any complicated business where there has been no foresight in dealing with management problems in the event of the death of the successful founder or operator. Occasionally the person designated by the deceased to succeed him falls down oa the job. In any of these circumstances, the sale to the best buyer becomes imperative. It is true, particularly in recent years, that the best buyer is likely to be from the United States. However, with the advent of the Canadian Development Corporation referred to by the hon. Member for York North (Mr. Addison), this situation will change. Today there are many more people from the United States in the market, and they have more surplus money. Therefore by reason of the lack of qualified management personnel, and by reason of the fact
there is no lack of United States cash, I believe the estate tax is only a minor factor in the sales which have been made.
Some good managers are bom, but most of them have to be schooled. In most cases, he is not a man of greed but rather one of dedication.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacNaughl:: Tomorrow we will take up the business that was interrupted at five o'clock, namely the resolutions relating to improving the procedures in this House. When the resolutions are concluded, as there is every reason to believe they will be, we will take up item No. 3 on the Order Paper, resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for the second reading of Bill No. C-102, an Act respecting banks and banking.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
May 19, 1965



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Canada Order No. 4222

[Stage Direction]
WHEREAS Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. on February 16, 1965, filed with the Board Original Pages 39 and 39A of its Charter Tariff No. 5 publishing rates for Bell 47G4 helicopters including a statutory declaration as required by General Order No. 35/63 in which D. W. Connor, General Manager of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd., attested that the Company had in its possession as owner one Bell 47G4 helicopter, that the helicopter had registration No. RNN, a Certificate of Airworthiness and was available for service;
AND WHEREAS the Board conducted an investigation into the facts respecting the said Tariff filing and is satisfied that on the date of the said statutory declaration Autair Helicopter Services Ltd.
(a)	did not have in its possession as owner such a helicopter, or any Bell 47G4 helicopter, but such a helicopter had been ordered by Maritime Helicopters Ltd., a subsidiary of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd., but had not been delivered;
(b)	did not have as owner a Bell 47G4 available for service; and
(c)	did not have as owner a Bell 47G4 helicopter for which a Certificate of Airworthiness had been issued by the Department of Transport;
AND WHEREAS Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. on March 23, 1965, filed with the Board a new statutory declaration purporting to be retroactive in effect attesting that Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. had in its possession as owner and as lessee respectively two Bell 47G4 helicopters, both of which were available for service and certified airworthy by the Department of Transport;
AND WHEREAS the Board conducted an investigation into the facts respecting the said new statutory declaration and is satisfied that on the date of the said statutory declaration Autair Helicopter Services Ltd.
(a)	did not have in its possession as owner a Bell 47G4 helicopter but such a helicopter had been ordered by Maritime Helicopters Ltd., a subsidiary of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd., but had not been delivered;
(b)	did not have as owner a Bell 47G4
helicopter which was available for service;
(c)	did not have as owner a Bell 47G4
helicopter for which a Certificate of Airworthiness had been issued by the Department of Transport; and
(d)	did have under lease a Bell 47G4 helicopter which was certified airworthy by the Department of Transport but which was registered as a private aircraft;
AND WHEREAS the said Charter Tariff was accepted by the Board on the basis of two statutory declarations which in the opinion of the Board contained information which was false and misleading;
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
THAT Original Pages 39 and 39A of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd.'s Tariff No. 5 filed with the Board for effect February 17, 1965, and any revisions thereof, in which were published rates for Bell 47G-4 helicopters, are disallowed.
DATED at OTTAWA, CANADA, this 6th day of May, 1965.

[Stage Direction]
(Signed) D. F. Quirt, Secretary.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 20, 1965