1965-06-30

Mr. Speaker:: Order. On the eve of the 98th anniversary of Canada's Confederation I ask leave to make an announcement of interest and importance to all hon. Members, which should be of significance to all Canadians.
In the tragic fire of 1916 that destroyed the old Centre Block we lost one of the finest historical treasures, the monumental oil painting by Robert Harris of the Fathers of Confederation. That famous painting, which only exists now in copy, depicts the Quebec Conference of 1864. I know all hon. Members will be delighted to learn that an exact restoration of the Robert Harris painting is to be presented to the nation by Confederation Life Association. It will be hung in the Parliament Buildings, hopefully well before July 1, 1967. The artist commissioned for this challenging task is Mr. Rex Woods, of Toronto, who is noted for his portrayal of persons and events from Canada's past.
The success of our forthcoming centennial hinges on the imagination and leadership of government at all levels, voluntary and other organizations, business and individuals. I am sure this gift to the nation from Confederation Life will help to make Canadian history come alive, both for our own people and for those of other lands.



AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development under Standing Order 65 be composed of the following Members:
Armstrong	Danforth
Asselin (Richmond-	Doucett
Wolfe	Ethier
Bechard	Forbes
Beer	Gauthier
Berger	Gendron
Choquette	Greene
Crossman	Gundlock
22S20-195
Habel
Hamilton
Herridge
Honey
Homer (Acadia)
Jewett
Jorgenson
Kennedy
Langlois
Laverdidre
Leduc
Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Loney
Matte
Moore


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Muir (Lisgar)
Mullally
Olson
Ouellet
Peters
Pugh
Rapp
Roxburgh
Saltsman
Tucker
Vincent
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Watson (Assiniboia) Webb Whelan

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

Mr. Matheson: 1.	In the period from 1920 to 1964 inclusive, how many persons convicted of murder and sentenced to death (a) were executed (b) had their sentences commuted?
2.	Of those persons whose sentences were commuted, categorized by years served, how many convicts (a) died in custody (b) are still in custody (c) were released?
3.	Of those persons who were released by parole or ticket-of-ieave how many had to be returned to prison?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) 387
executed; (b) 257 sentences commuted.
Note: With respect to part (a), it should be noted, if comparing this figure with statistics previously given by years, that the total yields one more than the addition of the individual years because of the omission of one case in 1954 which has now been corrected.
2. (a) 33 inmates: 4, 1 year; 1, 4 years;
2, 5 years; 3, 6 years; 1, 7 years; 3, 9 years;
3,	10 years; 1, 11 years; 1, 12 years; 1, 14 years; 1, 15 years; 1, 16 years; 5, 18 years; 1, 19 years; 1, 28 years; 1, 30 years; 1, 40 years; 1, 41 years; 1, 46 years; total 33.
(b) 94 inmates: 9, 1 year; 6, 2 years; 7, 3 years; 8, 4 years; 9, 5 years; 9, 6 years; 6, 7 years; 7, 8 years; 3, 9 years; 3, 10 years; 4, 11 years; 3, 12 years; 2, 14 years;

June 30, 1965
Questions
2,	15 years; 2, 18 years; 1, 19 years; 1, 24 years; 1, 26 years; 1, 29 years; 1, 30 years; 1, 33 years; 2, 34 years; 1, 37 years; 2, 40 years; 1, 41 years; 2, 43 years.
(c)	108 released: 1 between 2 and 3 years;
I	between 3 and 4 years; 3 between 5 and 6 years; 3 between 6 and 7 years; 4 between 7 and 8 years; 6 between 8 and 9 years; 5 between 9 and 10 years; 6 between 10 and
II	years; 9 between 11 and 12 years; 11 between 12 and 13 years; 2 between 13 and 14 years; 15 between 14 and 15 years; 20 between 15 and 16 years; 6 between 16 and 17 years; 6 between 17 and 18 years; 4 between 18 and 19 years; 2 between 19 and 20 years; 4 over 20 years.
3. Nine of those persons who were released by parole or ticket of leave had to be returned to prison.
Note: In comparing the number of commuted sentences with the total of those who died in custody, are still in custody and those released, it should be noted that the latter figures do not include those who were commuted and were committed to mental institutions. In addition, records were destroyed in the fire of June 1962, at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, so that the documentation is not complete. The National Parole Board also reports that no assurance can be given that its records are complete for the earlier years.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCIAL DISASTERS
Mr. Basford: In what year. In what amount, and how designated, has the federal government contributed to alleviating national disasters beyond the financial ability of the provinces?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: The information requested is given, for the years 1949-59 to 1961-62 on pages 4075 and 4076 of Hansard for October 28, 1963. The information for subsequent years is as follows: 1962-63, Nil; 1963-64, Nil; 1964-65, British Columbia, Port Alberni Flood, $250,000.
In addition to the foregoing, sums of $1.5 million in 1963-64 and $400,000 in 196465 were provided with respect to flood relief in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO MAINTENANCE OF MEMORIAL BUILDING, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to contribute to the maintenance of the Fathers

of Confederation Memorial Building in Charlottetown and, if so, what amount is to contributed annually?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Yes; $100,000.


FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	On what occasions since July 1, 1867 has the Government of Canada been requested by any of the provincial governments for an intergovernmental exchange to implement an entente, or an accord or an agreement entered into by a province and a foreign power respecting matters within provincial jurisdiction?
2.	Briefly, what was the subject-matter in each case?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is as follows: Until approximately 40 years ago the occasion for a request of the nature specified in the question would not have arisen under the Canadian constitution. Any interest which a province might have had in participating in arrangements with other governmental entities was a matter falling within the sphere of responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. All arrangements concerning matters falling within provincial legislative jurisdiction and purporting to have effect beyond the boundaries of the province were either embodied in Empire treaties or were in the nature of internal arrangements between the various parts of the Empire. The constitutional position prevailing until then, coupled with the fact that in the meantime the provinces have only infrequently seen the need in practice for formal arrangements to be entered into with foreign countries on matters within their legislative jurisdiction, has meant that there have been few occasions in practice when the provinces have found it necessary to seek the assistance of the federal Government in this respect.
The answer to the second part is as follows. In 1958 the federal Government was asked by the Government of New Brunswick to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement by that province and the state of Maine for the construction of the Campobello-Lubec bridge. A similar request was received from the province of Ontario in 1959 in connection with an agreement to be entered into between that province and the state of Minnesota for the construction of a bridge over the Pigeon River. Details of the two occasions since
June 30, 1965

April 1963 on which the Government of Canada facilitated the arrangements between the province of Quebec and France have already been given to the House in answer to question No. 2,768 asked by the hon. Member for Edmonton West on February 23, 1965. The text of this answer can be found on page 11818 of Hansard for March 1, 1965. Since then the federal Government has been requested by the province of New Brunswick to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement between that province and the state of Maine for the construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River at Milltown.


LOANS TO STUDENTS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Under the Canada Student Loans Act (a) how many loans have been granted to students in each province since the proclamation of the Act (b) what is the total amount of such loans (c) are all Quebec students excluded from the application of the Act (d) if so, for what reason (e) if not, under what conditions may they qualify?
2.	What qualifications are required in order to obtain such a loan?
Questions
3.	Does a university student coming from Quebec, whose residence has been established for more than 12 months in another province, become eligible for such loans?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Under the Canada Student Loans Plan, loans may be made by banks and designated credit unions only on the basis of certificates of eligibility issued by the provinces participating in the Plan. These certificates are issued only to students considered by one of these provinces to be residents for the purposes of the Canada Student Loans Plan. The provinces have recently established criteria for determining which participating province is the appropriate one to handle a student's application for a certificate of eligibility. These criteria are contained in the approved report of the Federal-Provincial committee on residence which appears in Appendix "A" of Hansard of June 11, 1965.
(a) and (b) As of April 1, 1965, the number of students assisted and the amounts of certificates of eligibility issued by the participating provinces, were as follows:
Province Newfoundland Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Yukon
Northwest Territories
Number of Students Assisted 732 431 2,450 2,008 21,287 2,259 2,965 4,481 4,650 12 9
41,284
Amount of Certificates Issued $	456,512
288,609 1,729,008 1,347,188 14,004,565 1,371,520 1,867,420 2,083,488 3,100,031 8,600 9,000

June 30, 1965
Questions
propriate authority of a participating province. To qualify, a student must (a) be a Canadian citizen or have landed immigrant status with 12 months residence in Canada, (b) be enrolled or plan to enrol as a full time student in a post-secondary course of study at an educational institution specified for the purposes of the Canada Student Loans Plan by a participating province, (c) have attained satisfactory scholastic standard, (d) actually need a loan to pursue his studies; and (e) meet the residence requirements in a participating province on the basis of the criteria contained in the approved report of the Federal-Provincial committee on residence referred to above.
3.	A university student coming from Quebec will become eligible to apply for a loan in a participating province 12 months after he has moved to that province if he is married or has established to the satisfaction of the province to which he applies that he is financially fully self supporting.


PAROLE OFFICERS IN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole officers are employed by the Department of Justice and what is their jurisdiction?
2.	How many of these are trained social workers?
3.	How many are university graduates in the social sciences?
4.	Does the Department make provisions for bursaries for the training of more parole officers and, if so, how many bursaries and for how much?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Forty five parole officers are employed by the Department of Justice. The jurisdiction of those employed in the field offices is geographically limited to specified areas and the duties include the direct interviewing of applicants for parole; the direct or indirect supervision of persons on parole and the maintenance of liaison with crown authorities.
Generally speaking, the jurisdiction of parole officers employed at headquarters is geographically limited to a specified area and their duties include the assembly of data necessary to the study of parole cases; the preparation of summaries, based on the data assembled, for consideration by the National Parole Board and the performance of incidental duties.
In addition to parole officers in the direct employment of the Department of Justice, parole supervision is also performed on behalf of the Federal Government by employees of qualified agencies in the corrections field.

2.	Eighteen.
3.	Twelve.
4.	No.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION
Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-: Huron):
1.	How many of the original Members of the Centennial Commission are still with the Commission?
2.	How many Members of the Centennial Commission have resigned within the past six months?
3.	Of the amount of money allocated to this project, how much has been spent to date?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Commission understands parts 1 and 2 to refer to members of the Board of Directors of the Centennial Commission. Therefore:
1. 8.
2. 2.
3. $6,509,043 to March 31, 1965.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1. How much money did the Department of Public Works allocate for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958, to June, 1962?
2.	How much was actually spent?
3. How much money did the Department of Public Works allocate for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	How much was actually spent?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


HEALTH AND WELFARE EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	How much money did the Department of National Health and Welfare allocate for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958, to June, 1962?
2.	How much was actually spent?
3.	How much money did the Department of National Health and Welfare allocate for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	How much was actually spent?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure
June 30, 1965

disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES. CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	How much money did the Post Office Department allocate for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958, to June, 1962?
2.	How much was actually spent?
3.	How much money did the Post Office Department allocate for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	How much was actually spent?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Transport from March, 1958, to June, 1962, for the County of Charlevoix?
2. What amount was actually spent in that County?
3.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Transport from June, 1962, to January, 1965, for the County of Charlevoix?
4. What amount was actually spent in that County?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question.
Questions
These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mi. Belanger: 1.	What amount was allocated by the Department of National Defence from March, 1958, to June, 1962, for the County of Charlevoix?
2.	What	amount	was	actually	spent	in	that
County?
3.	What amount was allocated by the Department of National Defence from June, 1962, to January, 1965, for the County of Charlevoix?
4.	What	amount	was	actually	spent	in	that
County?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


VETERANS AFFAIRS EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Veterans Affairs from March, 1958, to June, 1962, for the County of Charlevoix?
2.	What amount was actually spent in that County?
3.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Veterans Affairs from June, 1962, to January, 1965, for the County of Charlevoix?
4.	What amount was actually spent in that County?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Agriculture for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958, to June, 1962?

June 30, 1965
Questions
2.	What amount of money was actually spent
there?
3.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Agriculture for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	What amount of money was actually spent there?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


LABOUR DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Labour for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958, to June, 1962?
2.	What amount of money was actually spent there?
3.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Labour for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	What amount of money was actually spent there?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


FISHERIES DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 438
Mr. Belanger:: 1.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Fisheries for the County of Charlevoix from March, 1958 to June, 1962?
2.	What amount of money was actually spent there?
3.	What amount of money was allocated by the Department of Fisheries for the County of Charlevoix from June, 1962, to January, 1965?
4.	What amount of money was actually spent there?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible
tMr. Belanger.]
to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


FORESTRY DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, CHARLEVOIX COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Belanger: 1.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Forestry from March, 1958, to June, 1962, for the County of Charlevoix?
2. What amount was actually spent in that County?
3.	What amount was allocated by the Department of Forestry from June, 1962, to January, 1965, in the County of Charlevoix, including the ARDA program?
4. What amount was actually spent in that County?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


REQUEST BY SUPERANNUATES FOR INCREASED PENSIONS
Mr. Soulham: 1.	Did the Minister of Finance recently receive either a written or personal representation from officials of the National Association of Federal Superannuates requesting an upward adjustment in pensions to meet the ever increasing cost of living and, if so, has a meeting between his departmental officials and those of the Federal Superannuates been arranged to discuss this important matter?
2.	Will Federal Superannuates receive the same escalation benefits as those planned for active civil servants when the Canada Pension Plan goes into effect January 1, 1966?
3.	What was the balance of the Public Service Superannuation Fund as of December 31, 1964?
4.	By what amount during the last fiscal year did the interest accumulations on the Public Service Superannuation Fund exceed the payments made to Superannuates in the same period?
June 30/ 1965


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The Minister of Finance has received such representations from time to time. He and his officers participated in meetings with representatives of that association during the past year.
2.	The escalation of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan will be applied in accordance with that plan to all who contribute under it in respect of their benefits under it and not in respect of any benefits payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
3.	Approximately $2,136,046,470.
4.	Approximately $26,129,200.


PRICES OF C.M.H.C. HOMES
Mr. Stenson: 1.	What was the average price of homes built in Canada under Central Mortgage and Housing for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	What was the average land costs for these years?
3.	What are the land costs for Central Mortgage and Housing homes in the cities of Hamilton, Kitchener, Metropolitan Toronto, Oshawa, Ottawa, Kingston, London and Peterborough in 1962-63?
4.	What is the cost per lot, including land costs, all utilities and curbs, gutters, paved streets and storm drains in the following cities: Hamilton, Kitchener, Metropolitan Toronto. Oshawa, Ottawa, Kingston, London and Peterborough?
5.	Do any municipalities ask for assistance toward trunk services for a Central Mortgage project and, if so, which municipalities?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. 1958, $14,479; 1959, $14,729; 1960, $14,639; 1961, $14,888; 1962, $15,233; 1963, $15,682; 1964, $16,478.
Note: Data relate to estimated average costs of single detached dwellings financed under the National Housing Act. The mortgage insurance fee is excluded.
2. No series is available on the costs of undeveloped land. Data are available on the costs (estimated by loan applicants) of lots on which NHA financed houses are constructed. These costs vary with variations in the services provided, and with the extent to which such services are financed by municipal taxes. Of the two series below, (a) shows estimated costs for all lots, whatever the degree of servicing or method of payment. Series (b) shows estimated costs only for lots serviced with piped water and sanitary sewer, and for which the cost of all services is included in the price of the lot.
	Questions (a)	(b)
1958	$ 2,471	$ *1959	2,533	*1960	2,473	3,0871961	2,602	3,1801962	2,783	3,3401963	2,973	3,5031964	3,082	3,553
* not available
3 and 4. As indicated in 2 above, data on the costs of undeveloped land are not available.
The two sets of data, (a) and (b) referred to in 2 above are provided below for the centres indicated. Series (a) however, relates to the areas serviced by CMHC field offices in the centres indicated. In most cases, these areas are larger than the metropolitan and major urban areas specified. Series (b) relates only to the metropolitan or major urban areas specified.
(a)	(b)
1962	1963	1962	1963Hamilton	$ 3,818 $	4,054 $	4,396 $	4,458Kitchener	2,179	2,184	2,965	3,025Toronto	5,416	5,480	5,670	5,624Oshawa	3,189	*	3,318	3,405Ottawa	3,045	3,197	4,304	4,657Kingston	1,945	1,859	2,962	2,848London	2,595	2,805	3,245	3,349Peterborough	1,600	1,536	1,760	1,542
* not available
5.	Originally it was the requirement that trunk services to the edge of a Federal-Provincial land assembly or public housing project area were to be provided by a municipality at its own expense. Early in 1964, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation agreed that the cost of extending trunk services to a Federal-Provincial project could be allowed as a project development charge, provided the financial arrangements for these trunk services and the installation of services within the project area were the same as those applicable to privately-developed subdivisions. Since that time, the Townships of Etobicoke and Sandwich East have requested financial assistance to instal trunk services and the Federal-Provincial Partnership has agreed in each case to participate.


CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION, PICTOU HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government received any representations asking them to participate in the construction

June 30, 1965
Questions
of a causeway-dam across Pictou harbour, Nova Scotia, at the mouth of the Middle and West Rivers?
2.	If so (a) who made these representations and what were the dates of such representations (b) what answer did the government give to these representations?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2. In a letter dated February 2, 1965, Hon. Stephen Pyke requested approval to route the trans-Canada highway across Pictou Harbour at the mouth of the Middle and West Rivers. The route was approved as requested on the basis that under the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement the federal government would participate only in the actual or equivalent cost of the most economical crossing for a two lane highway. The type of crossing to be used has not yet been established.


DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING ALASKA HIGHWAY AND ROUTE THROUGH MAINE
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Are any discussions going on at the present time between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, initiated either by the Government of Canada or on behalf of any of the provinces, with regard to the improvement of the Alaska Highway through Canada and the possible construction of a direct route from the Maritime Provinces through the State of Maine to the Montreal area?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No.


CORRIDOR ROAD THROUGH MAINE
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Are any discussions in progress between any of the provincial governments and the Government of Canada, relating to the construction of a so-called corridor road running from the Montreal area through Maine to the McAdam area of New Brunswick?
2.	Has the government received any proposals regarding such a road from the International Atlantic Corridor Road Committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No.
2. No.


'LEGALIZATION OF LOTTERIES
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to amend the penal code in order to legalize lotteries in Canada?
2.	If so, when will such action be taken?
3.	If not, for what reasons will the code not be amended?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The most
recent expression of Government inten-

tion on this subject was contained in the press release following the federal-provincial conference held in November, 1963, as follows:
"Some provincial governments explained the difficulties they have in enforcing the provisions of the Criminal Code in respect of lotteries and gambling. Suggestions were made that the institution of provincial lotteries would alleviate the situation. Other provinces, however, opposed this suggestion. The Federal Government indicated that it had no interest in instituting a Federal lottery but undertook to consider the amendment of the Criminal Code in the light of the views put forward."
The government has not come to any decision as to what amendments, if any, should be proposed for the lottery sections of the Criminal Code.


LAKEHEAD-BRIDGE OVER KAMINISTIQUIA RIVER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have under consideration proposals made by the Northwestern Ontario Development Association that a new bridge structure be erected over the Kaministiquia River at James Street?
2.	Has the Department exchanged any correspondence and expressed any views or received any views from the Lakehead Harbour Commission on the need for such a structure and the relative responsibilities of the Department and this agency in such a project?
3.	What statutory authority or regulations in the hands of the Minister relate to the construction of a bridge over navigable waters?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.
Several weeks ago Mr. Hubert Badanai, M.P., for Fort William accompanied by Senator Paterson gave the Minister of Transport a copy of a brief submitted by the Northwestern Ontario Development Association to the government of Ontario, but this brief does not contain any specific proposal of recommendation from the association regarding a new bridge structure though strong representations in favour of a new bridge were made by Mr. Badanai and Senator Paterson. The Department is, however, considering, in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Canadian National Railways, the nature and scope of federal responsibility for a new crossing of the Kaministiquia River.
2.	The Department has deferred communicating with the Lakehead Harbour Commission on this subject until the completion of the examination referred to in answer to No. 1.
3.	In respect of railway bridges, the Railway Act and in respect of bridges in public harbours or over canals, the Department of Transport Act, Harbours Commissions Act,
June 30, 1965

1964,	the National Harbours Board Act and other Harbour Commissioners Acts.


LAKEHEAD-C.N.R. PARTICIPATION IN BRIDGE OVER KAMINISTIQUIA RIVER
Mr, Fisher: Has the Canadian National Railways given any consideration to any part it may play in determining whether a new bridge structure is advisable over the Kaministiquia River at or near James Street?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: Yes, a representative of the Railways is a member of the committee formed to study the current problem.


MEDICAL INVESTIGATION OF WAR PRISONERS OF JAPANESE
Mr. MacRae: 1.	In connection with the medical investigation now being conducted concerning those veterans who were prisoners of the Japanese in World War II, what are the specific problems which require further study?
2.	Which problems are being studied by the Department of National Defence and why is the Department of National Defence being used for this purpose?
3.	When is this investigation expected to be completed?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. The problems which require further study have to do with the validation of certain observations and evaluation of the significance of others.
2.	The Department of National Defence is involved to the extent that professional assistance is being given by specially qualified staff of that Department, as stated in the House on May 7, 1965.
3.	Some parts of the investigation have been completed and appropriate action taken. Attention is drawn to the statement of May 7,
1965,	regarding dental treatment. The study of other matters will be completed in phases, probably during the current year, but it is possible that some of the problems associated with the increasing age of the veterans will require continued study over a period of years.


BANK CURRENCY AND ASSETS
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	At the end of the last fiscal year, what was the total currency in the banks and held outside of the banks?
2.	What was the total amount of the money supply in Canada at the end of the last fiscal year?
3.	At the end of the last fiscal year, what were the total assets of the eight chartered banks?
Questions


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. At March 31, 1965 the chartered banks held $36 million of coin in Canada and $351 million of Bank of Canada notes. At the same date as shown by the Bank of Canada Statistical Summary the amount of coin outside banks was $232 million and the amount of Bank of Canada notes outside banks was $1,938 million.
2.	A commonly used calculation of the money supply is total Canadian deposits of the chartered banks less items in transit plus notes and coin outside banks. This figure was $18,440 million at March 31, 1965.
3.	The total assets of the eight chartered banks at March 31, 1965 were:
million
Bank of Montreal	$ 4,787
The Bank of Nova Scotia	3,149
The Toronto-Dominion Bank	2,650
The Provincial Bank of Canada	522
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 5,750 The Royal Bank of Canada	5,911
Banque Canadienne Nationale	975
The Mercantile Bank of Canada	161
Total	$23,905


FISH CONSERVATION, NEWFOUNDLAND-LABRADOR
Mr. Tucker: Has the Department of Fisheries given consideration to (a) the installation of fish hatcheries in Newfoundland-Labrador and the carrying out of a restocking program (b) changing regulations to more adequately suit all coasts and waters in Newfoundland-Labrador (c) rescinding fishing leases to individuals and private groups in inland waters in Newfoundland-Labrador?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: (a) Yes, and it has concluded that there would be no justification for such action. Other fish culture techniques are applied and are proving beneficial in the conservation program, (b) Regulations in Newfoundland-Labrador are constantly under review and are frequently amended to meet requirements of the fisheries in coastal waters, (c) Any matters pertaining to fishing leases to individuals and private groups in inland waters are entirely under the jurisdiction of the government of the province concerned.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Dube: What were the amounts paid by Canada under the fiscal arrangements plan to each of the four Atlantic Provinces in the fiscal years ending March 31, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?

June 30, 1965
Questions


Lawrence T. Pennell: The payments under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, 1956, and the Federal-Provincial
Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1961, to each of the four Atlantic Provinces for the fiscal years ending in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 are as follows:
Fiscal Year	Prince Edward
Ending in	Newfoundland	Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick1960	$27,516,519	$6,889,963	$39,444,809	$33,798,2381961	27,959,535	7,302,159	39,742,439	34,249,1221962	27,578,048	7,280,665	39,816,660	33,733,1711963	32,418,624	6,726,837	33,794,565	27,338,2841964	33,760,800	7,392,600	31,842,120	27,915,7301965	37,349,230	9,122,750	40,270,880	35,865,060
(prelim.)


CHANGE OF NAME OF HAMILTON RIVER. NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Did the government change the name of the Hamilton River in Newfoundland, to Churchill?
2.	If not, was the government consulted before the change was made and did it approve the change of names?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. No. The name of the Hamilton River was changed by Act 451965 of the Newfoundland legislature.
2. No. The provinces are recognized to have jurisdiction over geographical names within their boundaries. On the passage of the provincial Act, the name change was approved by and recorded in the files of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names.


EMPLOYMENT DIFFICULTIES OF INDIANS AND HALF BREEDS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the N.E.S. or any other agency or branch of the Department of Labour have an estimate of the unemployment difficulties of treaty Indians, non-treaty Indians, Metis or half-breeds, in Canada, and particularly in northern Ontario?
2.	If so, what is the estimate, in summary?
3.	Does N.E.S. encounter any particular problem in finding consistently gainful employment in northern Ontario for treaty Indians, non-treaty Indians, Metis or half-breeds?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1 and 2. The National Employment Service of the Department of Labour co-operates with the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the placement of Indian workers. It is estimated that last year, under this arrangement, some 2,500 Indian workers were placed in employment across Canada. N.E.S. does not maintain separate records of Indian applicants

for employment so that a precise breakdown of Indian placements by geographical location is not known.
3. Problems are encountered by N.E.S. in finding gainful employment for Indians in this area, problems similar to those encountered in many areas. In general terms these are related to lack of skills, low education, language problems, and remoteness from job opportunities.
EXTENSION OF C.B.C. TELEVISION FACILITIES Question No. 781


Mr. Simpson:: Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation announced or developed a definite plan to provide for an early extension of television network facilities to those populated areas not now served by the C.B.C. and, if so, does the government intend to recommend to Parliament that a special grant be provided for such purpose?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed that the Corporation maintains a television planning list consisting of locations in Canada which do not receive C.B.C. service. I am informed also that the question of television coverage extension by Corporation stations has been discussed with the advisory committee on broadcasting. The current budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation includes capital sums for the extension of C.B.C. facilities in various regions. The question of a recommendation to Parliament of a special grant will be considered by the Government when it has received and studied the report of the committee on broadcasting.


CENTENNIAL GRANT APPLICATION, SAUGEEN TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has an application been received for a Centennial Project Grant from the Municipality of Sau-geen Township, Bruce County, Ontario?
June 30, 1965


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Saugeen Township, Bruce County, Ontario, as at June 17, 1965.


SURVEYS ON LAKE OF TWO MOUNTAINS INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Have engineers and surveyors under federal authority been conducting surveys on the Lake of Two Mountains Indian Reserve since January 1, 1965?
2.	If so, for what purpose and under what authority are these surveys being conducted?


William Moore Benidickson: 1. Yes, assuming the reference to Lake of Two Mountains Indian Reserve means Oka Lands No. 16.
2. Legal survey of Indian land holdings under the authority of the Canada Lands Surveys Act, at the request of the Indian Affairs Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
SALE OF ROAD, ST. SYLVESTRE DE LOTBINliiRE, QUE.


Mr. Boulin: 1. Did the Department of National Defence put
up for sale the road joining the Village of St.
	1963
Canada	417,920
Prince Edward Island	4,158
Nova Scotia	19,305
New Brunswick	9,294
Quebec	66,182
Ontario	170,032
Manitoba	37,560
Saskatchewan	29,142
Alberta	36,938
British Columbia	45,309
1 Estimates for Newfoundland are not available.
2. Imports and exports of eggs during the
Questions
Sylvestre de Lotbiniere to the radar installations
nearby?
2. If so (a) on what date was it sold (b) what was the amount of each tender (c) what are the names of the tenderers (d) who purchased it and what was the purchase price?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. Those sections or strips of land that were acquired by the Crown in the right of Canada as improvements in, or substitutes for the old road known in part as the Ste-Catherine Range Road, and in part as old Ste. Marie Road were part of the radar site at St. Sylvestre offered for sale by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Offers on these sections were not invited separately from the entire property.
2. The site has not yet been sold.


EGG STATISTICS
Mr. Boutin: 1.	What was the production of eggs for 1963, 1964 and 1965, to date (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	Does Canada import or export eggs and, if so (a) what is the value of these transactions (b) with what countries is Canada trading?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) and (b) Production of eggs in Canada by Province1 for 1963, 1964 and 1965 to date:
1964	1965 (January to April)
-'000 doz. -	
437,906	154,780
4,079	1,505
18,278	6,047
9,713	3,265
71,520	28,443
177,023	60,065
42,878	16,604
28,089	9,637
38,574	13,078
47,752	16,136
calendar years 1963,	1964, and available statistics for 1965 are	shown in the table on
pages 3074-75.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF EGGS DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1963, 1964, AND AVAILABLE STATISTICS FOR 1965.
[Stage Direction]
Imports
Import Class Number	Description	Country	1963	1964	1964	January,1965.	Quantity	Value	Number	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value2325	Eggs in the shell	United Kingdom	
Denmark	
Netherlands	
Hong Kong	
Taiwan	
United States	
Totals	Doz. 	
nil 	
100 	
60 	
49,008 	
970 	
8,056,600	$'000 nil 1 34 1 5,078	53-19	Doz. 440,250 nil 56,072 nil 1,403,861	$'000 88 nil 35 nil 2,548	Doz. nil 5,225 nil 148,004	$'000 nil « 3 nil 270
8,106,738	5,114	1,900,183	2,671	153,229	273lbs.	lbs.	lbs.	2327	Eggs, whole, 3rolk or albumen dried	United Kingdom	
551	1	53-59	577	1	Netherlands	
330	<«	China Communist	
20,943	15	1,543	1	«	uUnited States	
185,843	220	251,775	308	10,190	12Totals	
207,667	236	253,895	310	10,190	12lbs.	lbs.	lbs.	2326	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen frozen or	otherwise prepared n.o.p.	Hong Kong	
450	53-69	943	Taiwan	
2,640	1	nil	Australia	
19,992	7	"	MUnited States	
16,710	9	6,503	5	"	"Totals	
39,792	17	7,446	5	nil	nil
- - Amount less than $500.00.
3074	COMMONS DEBATES	June 30, 1965
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Exports
Export Class No.	Description	Country	1963 Quantity	Value	1964 Quantity	Value	January-April, 1965 Quantity Value	Doz.	$'000	Doz.	S'000	Doz.	$'00053-09	Eggs, hatching	United Kingdom	350	2	nil	nil	510	6Germany West	11,790	9	6,652	32	21,897	63Italy	nil	1,261	3	9,888	28Spain	u	nil	nil	840	2Switzerland	1,020	3	1,320	3	480	1Argentina	765	5	nil	nil	nil	nilBermuda	450	. _	"	"	u	Barbados	13	38,540	32	14,126	13Trinidad and Tobago	750	1	nil	nil	nil	nilCuba	19,163	125	248,734	255	"	uUnited States	254,855	533	318,874	491	130,583	185Totals	305,606	691	615,381	816	178,324	298Doz.	Doz.	Doz.	53-19	Eggs in the shell n.e.s	United Kingdom	15,000	7	nil	nilSwitzerland	51,750	20	«	"British Guiana	300	900	Bahamas	nil	1,050	_ _	"	"Bermuda	76,652	37	40,650	20	7,620	3Barbados	10,613	6	12,540	6	5,250	2Leeward and Windward Isl.	nil	1,200	1	nil	nilTrinidad and Tobago	93,300	47	181,730	80	23,850	9Netherlands Antilles	2,400	1	nil	nil	nil	nilPuerto Rico	
nil	nil	367,500	118	93,300	25St. Pierre and Miquelon	2,310	1	6,720	3	1,230	- -United States	738,073	263	1,001,779	366	5,377	2Totals	990,398	382	1,614,069	594	136,627	41Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.	53-59	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen, dried	United Kingdom	7,760	12	23,115	34	nil	nilSweden	1,000	1	"	HRepublic of South Africa	1,400	2	"	UBritish Guiana	700	1	1,500	2	"	(«Trinidad and Tobago	600	1	nil	nil	"	MCuba	2,685	5	"	"	u	"St. Pierre and Miquelon	100	300	1	100	. .United States	725	nil	nil	nil	nilTotals	14,970	22	24,915	37	100	
Lbs.		Lbs.		Lbs.	
53-69	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen, frozen or							
otherwise prepared n.e.s	Jamaica	nil	8,416	4	2,014	1United States	173,546	42	79,070	6	74,100	4Totals	173,546	42	87,486	10	76,114	5
- - Amount less than $500.00
June 30, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	3075
Questions
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1965
Questions

Mr. Boutin: 1.	Of the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, how many are presently being repaid in Dorchester County?
2.	What is the present amount of indebtedness to the Corporation by the farmers of Dorchester County?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics on the number and amount of loans outstanding are not maintained on a county basis. However, for the Province of Quebec, the answer is as follows:
1.	3684.
2.	$37,432,657.


MAPLE PRODUCTS-PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS
Mr. Boutin: 1.	What was the production of maple products in Canada for 1963, 1964 and 1965, to date?
2.	Does Canada export maple products and, if so
(a)	to what countries (b) what is the value of such exports for the same years?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Production of maple products in Canada for 1963, 1964 and 1965, to dates:
1963	1964
Maple Syrup	Maple Sugar	Maple Syrup	Maple SugarProduction	Production	Production	Productiongal.	lb.	gal.	lb.Nova Scotia	3,600	10,900	1,400	1,500New Brunswick	7,800	32,000	4,600	11,150Quebec	2,488,000	669,000	1,561,000	457,000Ontario	219,000	7,800	155,000	7,960Canada	2,718,400	719,700	1,722,000	477,6102. Exports of maple products during the Note: Information for 1965 is not yet avail- calendar years 1963, 1964, and January to able.	April 1965, are shown in the table on page
3077.


EXPORTS OF MAPLE PRODUCTS DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1963, 1964, AND JANUARY TO APRIL, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Export
Class
Number	Description
101-05 Maple Sugar.
101-09 Maple Syrup.
- - Amount less than $500.00.
1963	1964	January-April, 1965
Country	Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Cwt.	$'000	Cwt.	$'000	Cwt.	$'000United Kingdom	
1	..	nii	nn	nil	nilDenmark	
617	33	1,671	93	«	"France	
nil	nil	453	24	"	«Sweden	
124	7	1,068	59	"	"Switzerland	
4	- -	nil	nil	"	"Republic of South Africa	
11	"	"	«	«United States	
51,296	2,311	46,797	2,202	24,597	1,143Totals	
52,053	2,351	49,989	2,378	24,597	1,143United Kingdom	Cwt.N. 499	25	Cwt.N. 264	15	Cwt.N. 141	8Ireland	nil	nil	nil	11	2Belgium and Luxembourg	12	1	35	2	6	France	2	157	7	180	5Germany West	17	1	56	3Republic of South Africa	nil	5	nil	Australia	46	2	19	1	Bahamas	nil	nil	«	nBermuda	3	<«	uBarbados	nil	3	II	aJamaica	1	43	2	It	aLeeward and Windward Islands	2	2	_ _	II	Trinidad and Tobago	nil	5	_ _	«	iiUnited States	.. 113,300	3,587	79,474	2,632	21,505	767Totals	.. 113,966	3,618	80,027	2,660	21,899	785June 30, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1965
Questions

Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total cost of the announcement of the new Federal Labour Code appearing in all newspapers, periodicals and magazines?
2.	What was the total cost of all TV and radio announcements with regard to the above?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. $142,769.
2. $28,968.


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


Maurice Lamontagne: The Centennial Commission does not receive applications made by towns and municipalities until they are approved by the provincial government concerned and therefore has no way of knowing how many applications were submitted by towns and municipalities in any constituency. No application relating to a project or projects has been received from the Ontario Centennial Advisory Committee referring to the municipality of Southampton, Bruce County, as at June 18, 1965.


USE OF RAILWAYS FOR MAIL TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcoux: Has the Post Office Department considered reverting to the use of railways for the inter-city transportation of mail as a means of reducing the number of thefts of mail bags from mail trucks?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Poslmasfer General):: The Post Office Department utilizes railways for the inter-city transportation of mail where trains with schedules suitable to our requirements exist.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OFFICE, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcoux: Is there an Industrial Development Bank office in the City of Quebec and, if so (a) since what date
(b)	how many employees are there in the office
(c)	how many loans are made each year (d) what is the total amount of such loans (e) what is the proportion of such loans to the bank's total business (f) what is the annual cost of operation of the office, and (g) what area is served by the office?


Lawrence T. Pennell: (a) Since June, 1959.
[Mr. Sharp.)
(b) Twenty, (c), (d) and (e) The information requested is not available. Loan approvals are classified by provinces on pages 14 and 15 of the last annual report of Industrial Development Bank, (f) Operating expenses of the Bank for fiscal year 1964 are given on page 10 of the last annual report but are not available by offices, (g) Counties of Lac St-Jean-Ouest, Lac St-Jean-Est, Chicoutimi, Charlevoix-Est, Charlevoix-Ouest, Montmorency, Quebec, and Portneuf; also counties of Lotbiniere, Megantic, Frontenac, and all counties eastward up to and including Kamouraska; the Magdalen Islands.


FINANCE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES RECEIVING OVER $6,000 ANNUALLY
Mr. Pigeon: X. How many French speaking Canadians are there in the Department of Finance, whose salaries are $6,000 a year or more?
2.	How many Civil Servants are there in all in this Department, whose salaries are $6,000 a year or more?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Finance, including the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury and the Royal Canadian Mint, the answer is as follows: To part 1, 236; to part 2, 951.


FEDERAL-ONTARIO DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT
Mr. Stenson: 1.	On what date were discussions between the Department of Industry and senior officials in the Ontario Government concerning the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement held?
2.	What were the names of the participating officials?
3.	With what provincial departments were the provincial participants connected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 to 3. On December 3, 1964, the Deputy and Assistant Deputy Ministers of the Department of Industry discussed the proposed Canada-United States automotive agreement with the Deputy Minister of the Ontario Department of Economics and Development and the Director of the Industrial Development Branch of that Department. Also, on February 4, 1965, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry met with the Minister of the Ontario Department of Economics and Development and with officials of various Ontario Government Departments to discuss the plan. There have subsequently been a number of other meetings between officials of federal departments and representatives of the Government of Ontario.
June 30, 1965

ENAMEL & HEATING PRODUCTS LTD.-LAYOFFS FOLLOWING CANADAIR STRIKE


Mr. Coates: Does Enamel & Heating Products Ltd. of Amherst, N.S., hold subcontracts from Canadair Ltd., Montreal, on any government projects and, if so (a) has the Department of Industry been informed of any lay-offs by this firm as a result of the strike at Canadair (b) has the Department taken steps to assist Enamel & Heating Products in the re-employment of such employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. (a) No (neither has Department of Defence Production), (b) N/A.


BREAKWATER REPAIR, BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
As a result of the investigation by the Department of Public Works, is that Department going to place comer sheathing on the west breakwater at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria County, N.S. and, if not, for what reason?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


RECORD OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Is the Connaught Laboratories establishing units to provide a very large amount of breeding stock for the hog industry in Ontario?
2.	Are they prepared to accept the present standards of the federal ROP tests and, if not, is the government planning any change in the present ROP standards?


Harry William Hays: 1. The Department of Agriculture is not aware of the magnitude of Connaught Laboratories activities in the distribution of swine breeding stock.
2. The Department of Agriculture has no information to the effect that the Connaught Laboratories are not prepared to accept present ROP standards. The Department is not contemplating any basic changes in principle in ROP testing, however, some changes in procedures are expected to be introduced in the relatively near future.


EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Flemming (Vicforia-: Carleion):
1.	What was the number of persons employed in the public service of Canada, under Civil Service, on March 31, 1963 and March 31, 1965?
2.	What was the total aggregate annual salaries paid to persons employed in the public service of Canada, under Civil Service, on March 31, 1963 and March 31, 1965?
Orders for Returns


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The number of persons employed in the public service of Canada, under the Civil Service Act: March 31, 1963, 144,500; March 31, 1965, 148,400.
2. Total salaries paid to persons employed in the public service of Canada, under the Civil Service Act for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1963, $643,315,000; March 31, 1965, $774,133,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: 1.	What are the subsidiaries of (a) Canadian National Railways (b) Polymer Corporation Limited (c) Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited?
2.	Who is responsible for the appointment of the administrators of such subsidiaries?
3.	What is the share capital of these subsidiaries?
4.	What is the function of these subsidiaries?
5.	Do these subsidiaries pay taxes?
6.	Who approves the operational and capital budgets of these subsidiaries?
7.	Does a Crown Corporation require ministerial or governmental authority to possess subsidiaries?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRACTS WITH CANADAIR
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many contracts has Canadair, Montreal, received from the Government of Canada in each of the past ten years?
2.	What were the products purchased by the Government of Canada under each of these contracts?
3.	What was the value of each of these contracts in the past ten years?
Return tabled.


C.M.H.C. LAWYERS EMPLOYED, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Scoff: 1.	Since April 8, 1963, how many lawyers have been employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the area of metropolitan Toronto?
2.	In each case, what was the name of each lawyer and the renumeration paid to each?
Return tabled.


HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has the Canadian Government contributed to the development of the High Altitude Research Program in each of the past three years?
2.	How much money has HARP received from the U.S. Government sources in each of the past three years?
3.	Has the Canadian Government made a commitment to HARP for the next year and, if so, how much money has been promised to HARP under this commitment?

June 30, 1965
Orders for Returns
4.	Has the normal increase in funding expected in the case of a successful program been applied in this case, that is 3 to 1?
5.	What other sources of funds does HARP have and how much will it receive from these sources for the coming year and the year following?
6.	Did HARP have a contract from the Canadian Government for the past year and, if so (a) when was the contract drawn up (b) when was the contract signed (c) how much money was allocated to HARP under this contract?
7.	Is any of the HARP money spent in Canada through the contracting and subcontracting of HARP work to Canadian industry and, if so, how much money, by what companies and where is it spent?
8.	Where are HARP'S launching sites at the present time?
9.	Is HARP contemplating new launching sites and, if so, where?
10.	Were any Canadian launching sites considered by HARP and proposed to the government and, if so, where were these launching sites?
11.	Were these proposed sites turned down by the Canadian Government and, if so, for what reason?
12.	Have the ultimate implications of the HARP project in terms of defence been adequately considered?
13.	In this field is the possible production potential in which Canadian industry could be involved being considered?
14.	Are systems studies which lead to recommendations and adoption of military or commercial systems being carried out by entirely independent and objective research consultants or are they being carried out by systems consultants whose companies are financed and backed by the producers of hardware equipment which would of necessity indicate biased judgment and an approach to the solution of problems designed, to specifically boost the products of the controlling companies?
Return tabled.


ADVKRTISEMENT RESPECTING LABOUR CODE
Mr, Harkness: 1.	In how many daily newspapers throughout Canada did an advertisement about the Labour Code, containing questions to and answers by the Minister of Labour, appear?
2.	Was this a full-page advertisement in each of these newspapers, if not, in how many newspapers was it a full-page advertisement and what was the size of the advertisement in other newspapers?
3.	What was the cost of this advertisement for each of the newspapers in which it appeared?
4.	Out of what Parliamentary Vote was the cost of this advertisement paid?
Return tabled.


BUTTER STATISTICS
Mr. Boutin: 

MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 50 and 55 are acceptable to the Government. Motions 48, 49 and 52 are acceptable to the Government subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent in each case of the provincial Government involved. Motion 51 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of other Governments.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: I ask that notices of motion Nos. 41, 47, 53 and 54 be now called. I ask that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE FROM GARTER KING OF ARMS RESPECTING FLAG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any letter or correspondence received by the government from the Garter King of Arms prior to the adoption of the new Canadian flag, January 28,
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I had a word with the hon. gentleman and explained to him that there was actually no correspondence relating to the flag of Canada, but there had been certain correspondence of a confidential character at an earlier time with the Garter King of Arms. The Garter King of Arms is regarded as a member of the Royal household, and to the best of my knowledge I do not believe there is any precedent for producing correspondence with any member of the Royal household. I believe the hon. Member feels that under the circumstances it would be appropriate to withdraw this Notice of Motion.


Mr. Coates:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PROCESSING PLANTS INVOLVED IN AVERAGE MILK PRICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Vincent:
That an order of the house do Issue for the list of processing plants, indicating for each, the type of operation, to be used by the Agricultural Stabilization Board to set the average national price for deliveries of milk in Canada, per cwt., during the dairy year 1965-1966 together with the list, indicating type of operation, of other factories, prices of which the board will not take into account.
June 30, 1965
John Whitney Pickersgill: The Member is not here.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall this notice of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD, MORRIS PROVINCIAL CONSTITUENCY, MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Maclnnis:
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 between Premier Ross Thatcher and/or other Ministers in the Saskatchewan Government and the Prime Minister and/or Minister of Agriculture since June 1, 1964 in connection with a road which the provincial government wishes the federal government to build or finance in the Morris provincial constituency.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Laprise:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter addressed by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, to the federal Minister of Agriculture, dated September 9, 1964 regarding a farm assistance program.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Laprise:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. Bernard Power and the Minister of Transport during the month of June 1965.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Hamillon:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government of the Republic of China (Formosa) respecting an invitation extended to that Government on behalf of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition to participate in the Universal and International Exhibition of 1967.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Howard:
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,
Motions for Papers
telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department or branch thereof and the Government of Saskatchewan or any agency or department or branch thereof since January 1, 1960 relating to the application of medical services to the Indian people in Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all notes, or memoranda made as a result of any conversations, by telephone or otherwise, between the government or any agency, department or branch thereof and the Government of Saskatchewan or any agency, department or branch thereof since January 1, 1960 relating to the application of medical services to the Indian people in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Knowles:: Could this stand, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



SURRENDER OF KLEMTV INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Howard:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all telegrams, correspondence or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any other person, government or organization relating to the sale, lease, rent or surrender of any part of the Indian Reserve or Reserves of the Klemtv (Kitasoo) band of Indians and for a copy of all minutes of the said band relating to all such sales, leases, rentals or surrenders.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



RETENTION OF MULGRAVE, N.S. AS ALTERNATE WINTER PORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. MacEwan:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department or branch thereof, and any person, town council or organization, relating to the retention of Mulgrave, N.S. as an alternative winter port.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister

June 30, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry of Labour. In view of the strong protest launched by the U.A.W. against the newly announced TAB plan, and the recent strong protest from the Ford Motor Company, both of whom are directly affected, can the Minister of Labour say whether he is prepared to withdraw this plan and put forward a better plan which would be acceptable to both parties concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not intended to withdraw the plan. The plan is a good plan. It provides a very high level of benefits. It compares very favourably with the plan proposed in the United States, and in the circumstances I think it is quite proper to expect the Ford Motor Company to contribute to a fund to assist in the adjustment problems of these workers. Because of the care that has been taken in developing this plan; because it provides a high level of benefits for the workers; because it holds intact their SUB funds and benefits for the future, and because it places an obligation on the companies to contribute, I think it ought to be acceptable generally after this is fully understood.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the Minister justify his statement that this is a good plan when both parties who are subject to the plan are protesting against it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the attitude of the Ford Motor Company. It is an attitude that would be fully understood, but from the point of view of the public it is important in our view that the companies be given an opportunity to bear a part of this financial burden.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the Minister justify this plan when the employees, in whom he has professed such great interest, are also protesting against it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it would be unusual for the leadership of a trade union to accept fully any plan without suggesting that the benefits be higher and the reaction in this instance is fully understood and expected.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Consequent upon Canada signing the automotive agreement with the United States, the outright gift of $50 million to the car manufacturers,

and the supplementary benefits now being provided for displaced Ford workers, can the Minister tell the House and all Canadians when we may expect to buy Canadian made cars at cheaper prices or in line with the prices of American made cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation has been made clear. Over the period of the operation of the agreement in the next three years we can expect, as the President of the Ford Motor Company announced the other day, that there will be a significant narrowing of the price differential between Canadian and United States prices for cars.


Mr. Reid Scoft (Danforih):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister assure the House that the Ford Motor Company of Canada will be required to make these contributions, or is there any truth in the suggestion that it has the opportunity to opt out of this particular scheme?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no compulsion in this plan at all with respect to the contributions from automobile companies with SUB plans. We fully expect that in the circumstances the companies will come forward and make contributions to the fund.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that the companies, which will get $50 million a year from the Canadian taxpayers, are not going to be required to make contributions under the plan; that any contributions will be purely voluntary and gratuitous if they decide to make them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as long as it comes in the form of hard cash the description is quite unimportant.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that the companies will get $150 million or $1 million a week before we can expect any lowering in the prices of cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secre-
June 30. 1965

tary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister tell us whether Mr. Guy Lord, who figures prominently in the Dorion report, is still in the employ of the Canadian High Commissioner in Great Britain?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. He is a student at Oxford, the second best university in England.



ANDRE LETENDRE-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a question for the Acting Minister of Justice. I wonder whether Mr. Andre Letendre remains in the Government service.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. By virtue of the provisions of the Civil Service Act-I think it is section 71-he is no longer in the employ of the Government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house why it was not possible, as early as 7:15 o'clock last night, to get a French copy of the Dorion report?
Can he also tell the house if he intends to take steps to order a second edition to meet the public demand?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I cannot answer that question, but I will take steps to get the information for my hon. friend.


Robert Carman Coates: should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give assurance to the House that there will be sufficient copies of the Dorion report published to meet the public demand. I understand that the Queen's Printer has already run out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are always anxious to meet the public demand. We certainly hope it will be met in this case.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



EMPLOYMENT OF SECRETARIAL STAFF DURING RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: May I ask the President of the Privy Council if he is now able to make a statement with regard to the question I asked yesterday about the employment of the secretarial staff during the adjournment.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand that arrangements have been made to have that staff kept on during the recess. The arrangement is that they will be asked to take whatever holidays are coming to them early in the recess. Then they will be asked to do work to assist with the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting which will be taking place here in September and to perform certain other work of that nature during any time they have left over after taking care of hon. Members' business.



INQUIRY AS TO SEATING ARRANGEMENTS AND APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any announcement to make concerning the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries, or a Parliamentary Secretary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the House Leader if he can inform the House whether there have been any changes in the backbench seating plan for his supporters, and what those changes are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can answer that. There has been a change. The hon. Member for York-Scarborough, who has been put in charge of the organization of committee work on this side, has moved up a little closer to the Whip.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask another question of the Prime Minister? Since, as I gather, only one move was made in the seating arrangements of supporters of the Government, can the right hon. gentleman tell the House what has happened to the hon. Member for Dollard? Did he move to another place, or, maybe, to the other place?
3084	COMMONS DEBATES
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think his seat has been changed. I am not quite sure where it is.



INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF CANADA LABOUR CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of his proud sponsorship of the legislation providing for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour, and in view of the fact that tomorrow is July 1, can I ask the Minister whether all those in the employ of this House of Commons who are now receiving less than $1.25 an hour will find tomorrow that the change has been made and they will be earning not less than $1.25 an hour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that as of July 1 every person in the employ of the Federal Government will receive the $1.25 per hour as a minimum. The statutory holidays and the vacations with pay will also be applied to all Government employees following July 1. With respect to the hours of work, this will require, as is provided in the bill, certain adjustment periods, and the same or similar procedures will be followed so that the objective of the hours of work will have been fully met over a period of time for those in the service of the Government.
With respect to the House of Commons, my information is that as of July 1 all employees will be in receipt of $1.25 an hour. If there are any individuals who are not then receiving this wage I would like to have their cases brought to our attention so the matter may be corrected at once. But my understanding is that everybody is covered.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume that covers employees of the House of Commons who may be called temporary employees, shall I say, such as student guides? I presume it covers all temporary employees as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the salary of student guides is far in excess of the minimum.


Harold Edward Winch: So it covers all temporary employees as well as guides?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

June 30, 1965



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture which is of concern to some agricultural producers in British Columbia. Can the Minister inform the House what his Department has done to meet the problem of the golden nematode, which has been bothering some farmers in British Columbia?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members are aware, the department announced on June 22 that the golden nematode, a serious pest of potato and tomato crops, had been found in a commercial field of potatoes in the Saanich peninsula of Vancouver Island.
This is a serious pest, not only because of its effect on potato crops but because if it became widespread it could result in restrictions on exports of plants with soil and seed potatoes, particularly to the United States.
The nematode was identified on the Vancouver Island farm on June 17. The farm has been placed under quarantine, and the export out of Canada of plants or crops with soil from Vancouver Island has been prohibited. Departmental officials have conducted an intensive survey of crops on the peninsula and to date have found no further indications of infestation except on this one farm. Investigations, however, are being continued to ensure that the infestation is confined to this one farm.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I may say that in cases where it is warranted appropriate compensation is provided for under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.


Mr. Chatterion:: The Minister said the export of crops with soil will be prohibited. Will the movement of such crops to other parts of Canada outside the Island be prohibited?


Harry William Hays: Yes, I think this is the case.


George Louis Chatterton: In that case would the farmers who are indirectly affected, those on whose property there is no infestation, be eligible for compensation also?


Harry William Hays: I will have to take the latter question as notice.
June 30. 1965	COMMONS



QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
I noticed a while ago that he answered with great interest a question directed to him by a member from the province of British Columbia. I should like to know whether he has given as much attention to the consideration of the brief submitted to him during the last few days by the Saguenay U.C.C., in connection with a request for $5 million assistance in favour of the farmers in the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.


Harry William Hays: I have not had an opportunity to sit down with this group as yet.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-LOSSES SUFFERED BY FRUIT GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask whether he could indicate when a decision will be reached or when an announcement will be made concerning a decision following the representations made to him yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia and representatives of the B.C. tree fruit industry for Federal Government assistance for the industry as a consequence of the disastrous losses suffered earlier this year.


Harry William Hays: As soon as all the details are worked out, Mr. Speaker.



SOUR CHERRIES-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from the fact that cherries will soon be ripe in Prince Edward County. Last year an estimated $30,000 worth rotted on the trees because of unfair import-export advantage given to the State of Michigan. Last week the Minister informed the hon. Member for Wellington South that he would make a decision in regard to assistance being provided to the growers of cherries in Ontario. What is that decision?
DEBATES	3085
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, there were 1,300 tons of sour cherries abandoned on trees in Ontario last year, mainly on account of poor colour. The total production in Ontario last year amounted to something like 15,112 tons. The Government supported the price to producers by supplementary payments totalling $300,000 last year, for the first time. And it might be pointed out that in the United States bordering the Great Lakes area 55,000 tons of sour cherries were abandoned on the trees last year for the same reason.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: 

FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Since authority to pay subsidies on deep sea fishing draggers was transferred from the Maritime Commission to the Department of Fisheries there has been a lengthy delay in the payment of federal subsidies to provincial loan boards. Will the Minister of Fisheries investigate the cause of this delay so that no undue hardship may be imposed upon shipyards and shipbuilders in the Atlantic provinces?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to advise the hon. Member that one of the main reasons for delay, if there has been delay, was the need to draft new regulations in order to make subsidies applicable under the policy changes which took place some months ago. I wish to assure the hon. Member that everything is being done to take care of all applications as received.



NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the
June 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister in a position today to provide a progress report on the activities of Dr. Ritchie Donald, who has been retained to make a study of the problems affecting the coal industry in Nova Scotia and can the Minister suggest an approximate time when some action can be taken by the Government to assist the industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: By way of an interim report I may say that Dr. Donald has been very active since his appointment. He has been in touch with all the interests involved in the Cape Breton coal problem. He is now making an on the spot study. I have given him instructions to undertake a thorough study but to waste no time. The report will be along in due course.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in connection with his recent statement that Canada would have colour television in 1967 at an estimated cost of something more than $15 million. How does the Minister reconcile this statement with that of Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, President of the C.B.C., who was quoted by the Toronto Daily Star as saying recently in an address to the Canadian Public Relations Society that it would take 10 to 15 years to convert to colour television at a cost of up to $40 million?


Maurice Lamontagne: The figure I gave to the House represented mainly the cost of adapting and adjusting the network facilities throughout the country.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to state the intention of the Government with regard to the address received from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the intention of the Government in due course to refer to the Governor General, with advice, the communication from the government of Quebec, together with the resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly for transmission to London.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will this be done prior to a debate on the question in the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been an opportunity, and there will be an opportunity, to bring up this matter during the next session before the recess.


Paul Raymond Martineau: One supplementary question, if I may. Will the advice to be given by the Government on this address be favourable or unfavourable, or neither one way nor the other?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that question has already been answered.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. In view of the announcement made by Mr. Speaker today that the other place has named its membership on the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Penitentiaries, may I ask the Acting Minister of Justice whether it is the intention to proceed with the work of the committee during the recess, or after reconvening on September 20?


George James McIlraith: I will have to take that question as notice.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that tomorrow Canada, a senior member of the Commonwealth of Nations, will be celebrating her 98th birthday, has the Minister made arrangements to supply the Royal Union Jack to all Federal buildings so that it may be flown tomorrow?
June 30, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	3087
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public	LABOUR CONDITIONS
Works): No arrangement of this sort has been
made. However, I will look into the matter. inquiry as to legislation respecting



SAFETY IN EMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Kiwanis Clubs all over Canada will be writing to the hon. gentleman, and no doubt he is already in receipt of some correspondence requesting that he give consideration to the issuance of a special commemorative stamp to mark the golden anniversary of Kiwanis International. Would the Minister give this request from this very worth-while organization favourable consideration?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet received any such requests, but I can assure the hon. member than when I do I shall give them the utmost consideration.



TRIFLUOPERAZINE-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that we hope the House may be adjourning in the near future, can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether the special committee set up to investigate the issue of a patent to a company seeking to manufacture the drug trifluoperazine has made any report to the Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this matter. If the hon. Member would allow me I might be able to communicate some information to him later in the afternoon.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would the right hon. gentleman agree to bring this report before Parliament before it is acted upon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That seems to be a reasonable request, and I will be glad to look into it.
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the Minister's statement on October 14 last that the Government's legislation regarding safety in employment was then being drafted and would be proceeded with as soon as possible, and in view of the fact that this was also forecast in the Speech from the Throne at the start of this session, can he say when this legislation will be on the order paper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not before the summer adjournment, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it be on the order paper when we come back after the summer adjournment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, after the summer adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So will Christmas be after the summer adjournment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister concerning the business of the House. It has to do with Bill No. C-129. I know I can speak for the members of this party, and I believe our views are shared by members of other parties. While we agree with the intent of the legislation there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the procedures set out in it. Without any desire whatsoever to hold up the legislation, I think most hon. Members will want to discuss it and suggest fairly far reaching changes.
I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that in the interests of getting on with the work of the House he might give consideration to sending this legislation to a committee of the House so it can be studied and the regulations examined, and the formula for designating areas gone into more thoroughly than could possibly be the case in the House in the next couple of days.
June 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: We intend to proceed with this bill, especially as the program begins, I believe, July 1; that is, tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether he would not reconsider the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a lew moments ago regarding Bill No. C-129. There are strong feelings about this bill, and in that spirit of co-operation for a summer recess I was wondering whether the Prime Minister would not consider sending the bill to the committee, or giving a reasonable explanation that would satisfy hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Timiskaming.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no payments can be made under this legislation until the bill is passed; but I believe I am right in saying that the actual designation of particular areas under the bill has to be carried out, after the bill is passed, by order in council. Therefore there is nothing final in the passing of this bill in so far as the actual designation of areas is concerned; and there will be an opportunity later to discuss that. But I would hope that the bill itself can be passed this afternoon, to enable payments to be made when the areas are designated.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the bill is going to be discussed at the conference with the provinces, and that finality in some of the aspects of the bill will be determined at this conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. We have already discussed this matter with the provinces.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that when the Prime Minister made his statement on this matter on June 7, and outlined three things that this bill should do, he had in mind the criteria that would be proposed following the conference; and is he not aware that these are not contained in the bill, nor is there any indication that the desired effects that he hoped would flow from the bill are in the bill?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my impression, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will carry out these desired effects.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question on the same subject to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production?
May we conclude that the designated areas will not be named prior to the federal-provincial conference to be held on July 19?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that finality as far as the Provinces are concerned has not been reached, and this bill will have to be discussed; and since there is no guarantee that all the Provinces may agree to it-there may be some modifications-would not the Prime Minister reconsider this matter and hold off the bill until that finality with the Provinces has been reached?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the distinction should be made between the actual areas to be designated and the general terms and conditions appropriate to parliamentary assistance to the areas that are designated. There have been informal discussions with the Provinces and agreement has been secured on the general scope and nature of parliamentary assistance. That is what is incorporated in the bill. There still remains for final determination the precise delineation of the areas, and it is this it is proposed to discuss with the Provinces at the forthcoming Federal-Provincial meeting. But in so far as the bill is concerned, the scope and nature of the benefits to be provided have been the subject of agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friends have suggested is that we alter the procedure that has been recommended to the House for today, and start with some other measure. Perhaps we can discuss the one we are talking about and how we should proceed with it. I do not want to be too rigid in the matter; if the House prefers to go ahead with the two supplementary estimates first, and then perhaps after that go on with interim supply, we should have the opportunity to discuss this subject later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent suggestion. I would toss out a proposal to the Prime Minister or the Minister
June 30. 1965

of Industry and ask whether they would consider-in the event that it is not possible to hold off the legislation, because it comes into effect on July 1-giving some undertaking later when the bill is before the House to have the regulations held off until Parliament reassembles, when they would be submitted to a committee of the House. It seems to me this is the point which is disturbing the Members, they have not received that type of information nor have they seen the regulations. I would ask the Minister whether it is possible to hold up the actual order in council implementing these regulations until fall.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour could proceed with his supplementary estimate when the orders of the day are called, and then we could discuss this other matter while the House is proceeding with that business.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Sc. To extend the purposes of Labour vote 5, main estimates, 1965-66 to include authority for payments of transitional assistance, in accordance with regulations approved by the Government in Council, to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries who become unemployed as a result of the operation of the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products, $5,000,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of Supply, supplementary estimates (C), Department of Labour, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, vote 5c. Shall the item carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not see the Minister of Labour here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He will be right down, Mr. Chairman; he has gone for his files.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that this item amounts to $5 million I was wondering whether the Minister of Labour might want to make a short statement to elaborate on this plan more fully than he did when announcing it.


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether you would consider calling item L27c, under the Department of Industry in the meantime, while the Minister of Labour is on his way down to the Chamber.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that vote 5c shall stand?
Supply-Industry


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
L27c. Loans, in the current and subsequent
fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist manufacturers of automotive products in Canada affected by the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products to adjust and expand their production; such loans to be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion or expansion of land, buildings, equipment, facilities or machinery and for working capital; and to authorize, notwithstanding Section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $20,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $10,000,000.
Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister of Industry, who is here, will give the committee an outline of the terms under which loans may be made under this particular item L27c. These loans are to be made to industry, and I think we should know in precise terms what is the intention regarding these loans so we can see in what proportion they will be allocated, and learn other details. I do not think we should be asked to approve an item for $10 million out of a $20 million commitment on a rather carte blanche basis.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if I could refer the hon. Member to my initial statement in Hansard, an outline was given there of the terms and conditions under which the loans would be made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it the Minister of Industry is asking this committee to pass a supplementary estimate for $10 million which is to be used to assist Canadian automotive car parts manufacturers -not the car manufacturers but the parts manufacturers-who have found themselves in a position where they are called upon to enlarge their operations and become more efficient, and in so doing to acquire extra capital. This supplementary estimate is to provide funds for this purpose.
In the initial announcement of the Minister the other day I think he said these loans would be made at an interest rate of 6 per cent. I should like to say that the Government are certainly not going out of their way to help the car parts manufacturers by giving them a loan at 6 per cent. I think any of them could go to other landing institutions and get money at 6 per cent. If the Government are sincere in their efforts to help these manufacturers they should at least grant.

June 30, 1965
Supply-Industry
them an interest rate lower than that which they can get from other lending institutions.
This assistance is better late than never but the Government have certainly left it pretty late, because at this point many of these manufacturers find themselves in a tight position. In any event I think they are going to think twice before they ask for a loan in order to increase their production and build up their plant, because they themselves are not too sure of the future of this industry. Is the Government going to continue meddling in the car and car parts industry? At the end of the three year term will the whole business fold up and will they then return to where they were before? These are questions which the manufacturers are asking themselves in considering taking this risk of further expansion.
The Minister has not told us just what representation has been made by the people in the industry and whether or not they are satisfied with the suggestion behind this supplementary estimate and the Minister's introductory remarks. The whole industry is in a state of flux at the moment, and I think if the Minister himself were in the car parts manufacturing business he would not know which way to move until this whole matter was settled, or at least until the United States Congress had passed their legislation.
Another question which comes to mind is this. What assurance have the car parts manufacturers of Canada that the Government does not intend to extend its provisions into the replacement car parts business? If this move were to be made the situation for the people in the car parts business would become very serious, because I understand that their bread and butter lies in replacement parts. I sincerely hope the Government is not intending to interfere with this phase of the car parts manufacturing business.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister some questions. This vote is for $10 million for the current year, and authorization for a total of $20 million for the current and subsequent years. Has any estimate been made of the small parts manufacturer's needs? Do they approximate $20 million, or is this a figure that the Ministers' Department has pulled out of the air? Does the Minister think $20 million will meet the situation or is this figure based on any survey that has been carried out?
The other thing I want to ask the Minister about is apropos his statement yesterday

that the interest was not a serious factor, but that the real problem involved is getting capital. It seems to me that 6 per cent is a fairly high rate of interest. If the Minister is really interested in helping the small auto parts manufacturers in this process of economic dislocation, the Government can certainly borrow money for less than that, and I wonder why the Minister does not consider 5 per cent as an appropriate rate. I think the only advantage that can be gained under the present terms is the one mentioned by the Minister yesterday, that they can borrow from this fund, assuming it is not all used up in the first six months, whereas they might have greater difficulty borrowing from financial institutions. I would think that most of the companies, with the security they have, would not have much difficulty in borrowing money at 6 per cent. The way the Minister could really help them would be by making this money available at a lower interest rate.
I have asked the Minister two questions; one, what is the estimate based on and, second, will he consider making this money available to these small parts manufacturers at a lower rate of interest?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the questions asked, first as to the interest rate, let me say that the object of this legislation is not to put the Government into competition with normal commercial credit granting facilities, but merely to provide those motorcar parts manufacturers, who find that they are for one reason or another not satisfactory commercial risks, with an alternative source of capital for financing their changes and expansions. It is not intended that this legislation should be a special form of subsidy to parts manufacturers in the sense of giving them-those who avail themselves of these loans-a lower rate of interest, or cheaper money than their competitors can get elsewhere. This legislation is not intended to put the Government into competition with normal commercial credit facilities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister a question on that point. Have the Minister's investigations shown that 6 per cent is about the average interest rate which manufacturers of this type would pay if they borrowed money on the commercial market? I thought they could borrow money at 5J or 54 per cent.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not in the borrowing business myself, Mr. Chairman, but I only wish that motorcar manufacturers in Canada could
June 30. 1965

borrow money at 5J per cent on short term. Unfortunately that is not the case. The 6 per cent interest on relatively short-term borrowings is an attractive rate of interest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You refer to short-term borrowing. What term has the Minister in mind?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have in mind relatively short or medium-term borrowing. Obviously longterm money tends to be cheaper than medium or short-term money.
In so far as the estimate is concerned, it is quite frankly just that, an estimate obtained after canvassing, to the extent possible, the not fully formulated plans of the motorcar parts manufacturers. It is hoped that this will be more than enough. As the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggests, the attractiveness of the expansion plans of most of the parts manufacturers-and it is apparent to the bankers and other money lenders in this country that they are in a substantially expanding market-is such that they are good risks, and it is expected there will be relatively little recourse to this fund.
The hon. Member for Wellington South asked what representations have been made by the parts manufacturing industry involved in the announcement of two days ago. In reply to that question, let me say that the first reaction is highly satisfactory. The Parts Manufacturers Association has indicated that this will meet their immediate needs and, of course, they are happy about it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may be allowed to ask a couple of questions I forgot to ask earlier. Why did the Minister set this up as a separate organization, and why is this not being handled through the Industrial Development Bank? Who is going to say who gets a loan; how are these loans going to be processed and what are the mechanics by which they will be processed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out in the announcement, the determiners who will say who shall get a loan, and who shall not get a loan, will be the members of the board set up for this purpose. The mechanics of analysing loan applications and the servicing of the loans themselves will be carried out through the Industrial Development Bank machinery, rather than through duplicate machinery established for this purpose. However, the determination or the decision as to which loans will be granted will be made by a special board established for this particular purpose.
Supply-Industry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask two
brief questions, one in respect of the board and one other? Who will be on this board- I am not asking for names, as the Minister has probably not selected the personnel? Will these be persons inside the Department, or persons in industry who will serve on a parttime basis? What is the type of person the Minister has in mind to place on this board, and will their decision be final or will there be an appeal to the Minister from the board? Will the Minister have the final discretion?
The other question I want to ask is in reference to medium-range loans. What does the Minister mean by that term? Does medium-term mean five to eight years, will there be a uniform agreement, or will the agreements vary from borrower to borrower?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the composition of the board, the Chairman will likely be a distinguished gentleman from outside the civil service. The remainder of the board will be made up of senior civil servants from the government department interested in this aspect of the operations, for example, representatives of the Department of Labour, the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Industry.
The hon. gentleman also asked whether there will be an appeal from this board. That has not yet been determined, but I hope that it will not be found necessary to provide machinery for appeals.
In so far as the terms and conditions of the loans are concerned, it would be advantageous to the borrower generally not to establish a standard inflexible term, but to tailor the loan to suit the borrower's particular circumstance and to allow repayment of these loans earlier than the contractual date without the payment of a penalty premium.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, if the terms of the agreement are to be flexible, what is the maximum length of the repayment period the Minister has in mind?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This was pointed out in the announcement I made. In respect of loans secured by moveables, to use Quebec terminology, the maximum period will be of the order of 10 years and in respect of loans secured by immoveable, 20 years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest that we allow the hon. Member for Villeneuve to make a contribution to the debate.
Supply-Industry

June 30, 1965


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask the Minister of Industry a few questions.
It seems to me that there is a duplication in administration by this new estimate and the way the minister is explaining to Parliament the application of this act dealing with loans, investments and advances to the automobile parts manufacturers. Will people who need such funds be able to borrow from the Industrial Development Bank which exists already? Will they be able also to borrow from another credit or banking institution with the government underwriting those loans?
It is important to know how the department intends to go about administering those loans granted to industrialists and new industries.
The creation of a special commission has been announced to deal with that matter. Special commissions are already operating within the Industrial Development Bank. I believe that some people there are already used to dealing with the industrial and economic development of Canada. We just have to give them more leeway and increase their present responsibilities. Then, there will not be any administrative duplication and the Industrial Development Bank could very well loan funds on a standard basis provided they get the authorization from the department.
I should like to know exactly how the people in need of that money will proceed: will they go to the Industrial Development Bank or to other banking institutions? How will the funds then be provided by the government? Will it not give a guarantee to a banking institution or to the Industrial Development Bank, or will the funds granted by the government be loaned to those new industries which we shall help keep in operation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the choice will lie in the first instance with the borrower. For reasons of his own he may prefer to use his customary means of securing additional capital, and there are a variety of choices open to him. If he is already a client of the Industrial Development Bank he may wish to avail himself of the facilities of that institution. There is of course a somewhat higher rate of interest payable and a somewhat shorter term normally required by the Industrial Development Bank than the rate of interest prescribed and the length of the term
[The Chairman.]
of the loan provided for in this particular arrangement.
When consideration was given to the establishment of a separate loan fund and a separate board as an alternative to employing entirely the facilities of the Industrial Development Bank it was felt that for a short term operation, as was made clear in the announcement that this form of assistance both on the side of industrial capital and on the side of labour would extend only to 1968, it would be preferable to set up a separate authorizing body to take care of the short term arrangement rather than endeavouring to change the practices and policies of the Industrial Development Bank.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, how many members-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please, The hon. Member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not admit, then, that there is duplication in the administration? Would it not have been simpler to authorize the Industrial Development Bank to deal with such cases, thus materially reducing the total cash expense or operating costs which this new administration will cost the Canadian people? Why not, instead, amend the act that now governs the Industrial Development Bank to allow it to make such transactions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, there will be no duplication of administration. As I pointed out, the administration and servicing of the loans will be carried out by the staff of the Industrial Development Bank and the only additional body that will be created will be this particular board consisting of a chairman and a number of senior civil servants who will be taking on this task in addition to their present functions. The reason for doing it this way rather than changing the statute of the Industrial Development Bank for a short period was that it was felt we should not disorganize for a short-term project the practices of the Industrial Development Bank which have been evolved over a long period.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few comments to make. I must say I take some exception to the method by which this matter is brought before the House. It may be that time is of the essence and that the exigencies of the situation are such that
June 30, 1965

this action is required. If that is the case, then this action is to some extent understandable. I took exception to the way in which the original measure was introduced by Order in Council; I take exception to the way moneys are made available for the purpose of assisting those who will be displaced in connection with the labour situation, and I take the same stand with regard to the way in which these loans are going to be made.
My view is that matters of this kind where we are breaking new ground should all have been brought forward in legislative form. With regard to the organizations which have been mentioned, the Industrial Development Bank, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and so on, legislation was brought before the House and conditions were laid down categorically. The House had ample opportunity to discuss those measures and to make such changes and recommend such alterations as they saw fit.
This particular vote is in the most general terms. The vote as such is a resolution of the House and when incorporated in an appropriation bill it becomes a statute. It seems to me that matters of this kind should be embodied in a vehicle dealing with the issues, particularly where there is a radical departure from the practice of the past.
I notice it is suggested that despite the Financial Administration Act there may be total commitments of $20 million, but my experience is that once such votes creep into the estimates they are continued year in and year out. We may be establishing a precedent here which will make it difficult in the future for us to take objection with regard to issues of this kind. I am not going to argue about the desirability of or necessity for this action, but the method used in this instance and in connection with the vote of $5 million for the original program is one in respect of which I must register my strong protest.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: As I understood the Minister, the Commission will be composed of top level civil servants. Will the Chairman also come from the civil service or will the Minister be the Chairman?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It will not be the Minister. I hope he will be someone from outside the civil service, but of comparable rank with senior civil servants.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: The appointment will be for what term of years? I understand this plan is to deal with an emergency resulting from
Supply-Labour
the adoption of the policy by the Government. What period of years does the Minister foresee for this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the announcement pointed out, these arrangements are only contemplated for a period ending in 1968.


Reid Scott: I wanted to ask the Minister if the salaries of these various people have been set as yet, and could he tell us what they will be?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As is customary, servants of the Crown do not draw extra remuneration for additional work done on behalf of the Crown.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Chairman will not be a civil servant, as the Minister indicated he would come from outside. What salary does the Minister intend to pay him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No final determination has been made of that, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has any determination been made of the person to be appointed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman.


Reid Scott: I just wanted to say a word in support of the position taken by the hon. Member for Peace River and to register our objection as well to the manner in which this particular type of legislation has been brought before the House. After all, $20 million is a great deal of money, yet we are handed an executive decision by way of an announcement on orders of the day. It seems to us no adequate way is provided for dealing with the matter in this particular fashion. I should like to endorse his views and place this party on record in this matter.
We know the Minister of Industry is very able and knows everything about matters of this kind. Perhaps we should not be questioning his judgment. At the same time, however, we have a good example in the bills which we were discussing on orders of the day again, and about which it seems the views of the Opposition are not really very important and are not going to be given very much consideration. I should like to make our position clear, as well. We object to this way of bringing in very important matters of this kind having them decided by executive decision and then being confronted with the results.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
5c. To extend the purposes of Labour Vote 5, Main Estimates, 1965-66 to include authority for payments
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1965
Supply-Labour
of transitional assistance, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries who become unemployed as a result of the operation of the Canada-United States Agreement on Automotive Products, $5,000,000.
Michael Starr: We were holding this item until the Minister of Labour arrived, in case he wanted to make a statement further to the announcement he made earlier.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take much of the time of the committee in introducing this item. I will be prepared to answer any questions that may arise in connection with the item that is being put forward to provide transitional assistance for auto workers. We believe that the automotive agreement will increase production and employment in the automotive industry. The automotive agreement involves considerable reorganization of production, and for that reason there will be temporary unemployment and displacement of workers in the automobile manufacturing industry and in the parts industry. We do not believe that the workers should bear the full burden, the full financial burden, of their unemployment. The economy as a whole will benefit, the country as a whole will benefit, the automobile companies will benefit, and for that reason we believe it is reasonable that the taxpayers and the companies jointly should assist the workers over this temporary period of unemployment.
We are providing a level of benefits for eligible workers ranging from 62 per cent to 75 per cent of the workers' weekly pay, depending upon the number of their dependants and provided these benefits do not exceed 65 per cent of the average weekly wages and salaries in the motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts industries. The present average is just about $75 per week. The maximum benefit available under this proposed plan is $75 per week. I think the generosity, which is the wrong word in the circumstances, in increasing the level of benefit provided under this plan can be more readily appreciated if it is compared with the maximum level of benefit available to unemployed workers under unemployment insurance, which is $36 per week. The maximum under this plan is $75 per week. The maximum hitherto accepted in this country, accepted by Parliament under a bill introduced by my predecessor is $36 per week. We have made, therefore, very successful strides in increasing the level of benefits which will be not only of importance in this case but which will be a point of

comparison for any future changes in unemployment insurance, and any further extension of this principle to other cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister a
question while he is on that point? How would this maximum of $75 compare with the maximum which would be available to unemployed auto workers who have SUB, because that is the only fair comparison-not with the general unemployment insurance figure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This plan will provide a level of benefit slightly higher than SUB-$2 or $3 higher. Now, bear in mind that this plan will apply to all auto workers, many of whom presently are not covered by SUB plans. The taxpayer will have to bear the additional burden of this transitional payment because many are not eligible for SUB plans.


Reid Scott: In the event you are making payments to workers who are not eligible for SUB benefit, is it not a fact that they will not be eligible for TAB unless the employer agrees to pay into the fund what he would have paid if they had been eligible for SUB payments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman; we are not in this plan worsening or bettering the position of any company. We asked companies with SUB plans that an amount equivalent will be put into the treasury or into the TAB fund equivalent to what the company would have paid to it if the SUB plan had been used. In plants where no SUB plan exists-the smaller parts companies, in many cases-there will be no contribution forthcoming from companies. Contributions will come only from companies with SUB plans. [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Reid Scott: Take for example the case of the lay-offs in Windsor last week end. Some 500 workers were laid off by a company which has a SUB plan. Because these men had been employed for less than a year they were not eligible for SUB payments in any event. Are they eligible for TAB even though the employer does not contribute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, they will be eligible if they meet the requirements. No doubt we shall be discussing these later.
I think it is important to say a word about our attitude toward the SUB funds. Representations were made to the Government by the auto workers to the effect that these funds, which are built up by company contributions, had at a certain stage in the evolution of
June 30. 1965

collective bargaining been gained in lieu of wage increases. The argument was put forward: Why should these SUB funds be used during a lay-off induced by public action? We accepted that argument. The proposal of the United States was different. They intend to use the SUB funds. The reason we accepted the argument is simple. If the SUB funds were used to pay benefits during this lay-off the duration and level of benefits would be affected in subsequent lay-offs. In other words, less would be available for use by the workers in non-Government-induced lay-offs. We are therefore asking the companies which have SUB funds to pay into the TAB fund an amount equivalent to what they would have paid had the SUB fund been in operation. The credit of the workers will remain intact for the future, and for workers under any SUB plan the level of benefit will be the difference between what they would receive under unemployment insurance and the maximum of $75.
This is a very important feature of the proposal we are making. In the United States a determination of the benefits to the workers to be affected has not yet been made. A Congressional Committee has studied this question very carefully and a proposal is made in the Committee report indicating Congressional intent as to how public benefits ought to be related to the SUB plans. It may be that the level of benefits, immediately, may be higher than the maximum in Canada if Congressional intent is reflected in a decision of the arbitrator in the SUB plans. We limit our level of benefits to 65 per cent of the average weekly wages and salaries in the motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts industries. The limitation in the United States is, of course, the average of manufacture. The feature of this plan which is definitely superior is that the companies are being asked to pay up, to meet the cost of benefits during this transitional period and the workers will have the SUB plans intact, fully protected for subsequent lay-offs.


Norman Platt Lambert: What if the companies do not pay up?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman asks what would happen should the companies not participate. The Minister of Industry may have something to say about the company contributions, because discussions have taken place between his department and the Ford Motor Company. We fully expect that the motor companies will come forward and con-22620-197
Supply-Labour
tribute. And why not? They are receiving very handsome benefits from this plan.
I may say I am getting a lot of advice from hon. Members around me. This is a group speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are a lot of
us here who are interested in Windsor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The companies are receiving these benefits and we are not asking them to contribute more than they would be contributing had the SUB funds been in operation. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam says there is no compulsion. There is no compulsion legally, but surely there is a very strong social compulsion for the companies to come forward and contribute. I feel sure the companies will come forward.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What if they do not? What will happen to the workers in that case? Will TAB continue to pay the full amount?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to be flippant and say that this is a hypothetical question, but I do not expect to meet that situation at all. I am not thinking of the possibility of the companies not coming forward.


Michael Starr: On that very point, a few minutes ago the Minister of Labour said there were a great many people who were not covered under SUB. The reason they are not covered in most instances is the attitude taken by the companies that they were not prepared to enter into a collective agreement in this sphere. It was not for lack of bargaining by the U.A.W.A. designed to incorporate this into a collective agreement. If these companies were not prepared to enter into a collective agreement, how will the Minister persuade them to contribute a similar sum toward TAB? If they do refuse, where is the money coming from to pay those who may be affected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Workers for companies under agreements not including SUB will be fully compensated out of the TAB fund.


Michael Starr: That is, by the Government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will be fully compensated out of the TAB fund provided by this estimate. Only companies with SUB funds will be asked to provide an equivalent amount.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just told us in his own way the process that will be used with respect to adjustments

June 30, 1965
Supply-Labour
made for workers who will have to change jobs.
In the first place, who will decide the eligibility of workers? Will it be the National Employment Service or the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Which organization will decide the eligibility of a candidate or claimant who puts in an application to obtain such a sum of money?
The minister says that the management of automobile companies do not object to taking part in these payments. In this connection, I agree with him and even if some members have expressed their concern, we are not afraid of that. The companies will lose absolutely nothing, even if they contribute. Indeed, if the directors of a firm are contributing $100 for instance, do not suppose that this amount will be taken out of their profits. The price of the car will be increased not by $100, which was the amount provided, but by $100 plus the normal profit rate, namely 10, 12, 15 or 20 per cent, which means that the prices are going to be increased and that the Canadian taxpayer, the Canadian worker is again the one who will have to pay.


Mr. Gauthier:: It could be the dealer.


David Réal Caouette: Not even the dealer, Mr. Chairman. Those who are wondering whether the companies will share in this plan need not worry, for the directors of those companies agree right off with the minister or ministers concerned to contribute to those funds, since those contributions will be added to the cost price of the products they will be selling.
Consequently, I feel that the minister is perfectly right in saying that he is not worried, that he does not even think that those company officials could refuse to participate in his scheme. Anyone would contribute in the same way when it is profitable to him and does not cost a cent to the company.
Mr. Chairman, what will happen to the man, to the worker who will be displaced? Who will decide whether or not he is eligible to the benefits he is claiming because he is displaced or transferred from one plant to another?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Villeneuve asked how the eligibility of workers would be determined. An application for assistance could be submitted by a firm on behalf of its employees, by a group of workers, by their union or by an authorized representative, to the Adjustment

Assistance Board, and the Board would conduct an investigation and determine whether a significant number or proportion of workers of the firm or subdivision thereof have been or will be laid off for a period of at least 30 days, and whether the lay-off was caused by the termination of or significant decrease of production or activity arising from the operation of the Canada-United States automotive agreement. If the Board accepts the application it will then certify that this group of workers is eligible and the workers would then apply to the Department of Labour for the transitional assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is there any length of time involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The determination must be made within 30 days of receipt of the application by the Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is there any length of service by the worker required in order for him to be eligible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The worker must first of all be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefit. To be eligible a worker must have had at least 30 weeks of employment in the 52 weeks prior to the lay-off; the idea being that there must be some attachment to the industry on the part of a worker in order to receive benefit. This is well understood in unemployment insurance and other benefits, and 30 weeks is the period of employment that is required.


Michael Starr: With regard to the 30 days in which approval must be obtained from the Adjustment Assistance Board, is this period after the actual lay-off takes place?
Mr. MacEachen.' It is actually after the application has been received by the Board. Presumably an application could be made to the Board in anticipation of a lay-off, but more logically it would probably occur at the time of the lay-off. Then the application would be made, and the determination made within 30 days.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour has outlined to us in brief detail some of the aspects of this so-called new plan, the TAB plan. It is no different, in my opinion, from what has been negotiated with the employers by most of these people who will be affected. That is called the Supplementary Unemployment Benefits plan. The Minister said a moment ago that application must be made to the Adjustment Assistance
June 30, 1965

Board in respect of workers who have been laid off, and a decision must be made within 30 days. This is not good enough. This is not as good as the SUB plan, under which a person laid off can receive full benefit after the first seven days and does not have to wait. He can send his application directly to Ottawa in order to have it considered carefully, and does not have to wait 30 days without receiving any benefits whatever.
What does this new TAB plan really do? It gives each and every worker $2 or $3 a week more than he would receive under the SUB plan; but because of the limit of $75 a week many employees who have negotiated for a higher percentage under the SUB plan would receive less. Not only the automobile industry but subsidiary industries, parts manufacturers, operating under the SUB plan give anywhere up to 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the take-home pay of the worker. Consequently the worker is not going to receive as much under this plan as is the case under the regular SUB plan. No wonder the U.A.W, which negotiates most of these contracts, and all the automobile industry and its subsidiaries, are claiming that this plan is not the solution to their problem. It does not go far enough; in many cases it does not go as far as SUB.
What is the Government's contribution? It is $2 or $3 a week per worker. This is the entire contribution the Government is willing to make. You cannot count the unemployment insurance benefits because they are there now; the workers are entitled to them now, provided they have made sufficient contributions. What the Government is offering them is $2 or $3 a week more, in some instances, than they would get under the SUB. This measure, this supposedly great help to the laid-off workers, has been brought in as the direct result of an agreement this Government signed almost six months ago. Here is a Government which came into office on the basis of 60 days of decision. It has now become a Government of deadlines. I doubt very much whether even this token assistance would have been brought in if we were not approaching the end of the session and a recess for the summer months, if pressures had not built up to the extent that the Government was forced to do something about this very important matter.
The Ford Company of Canada points out the facts. I have not heard the Minister dispute these facts, which are contained in the Globe and Mail of today's date. In despair, 22620-1971
Supply-Labour
at the last minute and because of impending lay-offs in the Ford motorcar industry, the Minister of Labour rushes to Washington- and this is all he comes back with. I am sure he did not copy the American plan at all; he could have stayed at home and figured this out. All he had to do was to add $2 or $3 more to some of the existing SUB plans.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is a last minute rush. We had the same situation with the Minister of Industry, who all of a sudden found out, after the Prime Minister had made an announcement on June 7, that he needed a bill to put into effect the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister. Here we are today faced with a problem which we have to unravel. This matter could have been decided two weeks ago. There has been negligence all down the line in the treasury benches on most of the matters affecting the country as a whole and its people.
George Burt of the United Automobile Workers, who is spokesman for the U.A.W.A. members, says that this step does not go far enough, and in view of this he is prepared to criticize the whole plan. I do not think that he would make a statement of that kind without some very serious consideration of the effects of the plan.
A few moments ago the hon. Member for Villeneuve asked who would be in charge of the fund and who would make the payments. I do not think that the Minister advised us as to the instrument he will use to make these payments, whether it would be the Unemployment Insurance Commission or some other agency. These are questions which the Minister of Labour should answer before we pass $5 million, which is a substitute for what should have been an effective plan for workers who are laid off as a direct result of this Government's agreement with the United States.
We should also consider the fact that because of the trade policies of the Government there may be lay-offs in other industries as a result. How does this affect other industries outside the automobile industry? What about lay-offs in the furniture industry, the aluminum industry or the textile industry? Is this plan going to be extended to these industries or is it exclusive to the automobile industry? I would ask the Minister of Labour to answer these questions also.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have a few general observations to make to the Minister,

June 30. 1965
Supply-Labour
and then perhaps we can get into the detailed questioning of the plan. First of all, it has been said before in this House that this party is in broad general agreement with the intent of this scheme. All parties in the House have been worried about the imbalance in the automotive industry between Canada and the United States, and the general intent of this legislation to try and correct this is a good one, one with which no one would take serious issue. But it seems to us that this agreement and the proposal of the Minister raises a far more serious question.
What we really have here is one of the first occasions where the actual trade policies of the Government have resulted or will result in fairly severe dislocation of the workers in the industries involved. These workers had nothing to do with the decisions which brought about their unemployment. The agreement was negotiated between the two Governments concerned and the employers. These workers had no influence or sway over our trade policies. As I said, I am not particularly quarrelling with them-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Neither did Parliament.


Reid Scott: As my leader says, neither did Parliament-but be that as it may, the Government has initiated a very serious problem for the labour movement.
What we would suggest to the Minister is that we take this occasion to establish a new principle in our relations with the trade union movement, namely that where dislocation takes place in the labour force as a result of Government action the workers in the industries concerned should not be expected to bear any economic loss. It is not fair to equate the position with SUB benefits because, as the Minister knows, SUB benefits were never intended to meet this type of situation. Workers in the automotive industry know that there are likely to be lay-offs when they take jobs. This is a hazard of their occupation, and to protect them the union has built up these funds under the agreements. But there is no relationship at all between the principle of SUB plans and the principle as stated in this proposal.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are suggesting it is important to establish this principle now because of its implications for the future, namely that economic dislocation caused by Government activity in the trade field should not result in any economic loss to workers engaged in particular industries. This is not a particularly new idea; there are other areas

where this principle has been accepted. But if the Government is not prepared seriously to consider this proposal I suggest there is a real danger that it will succeed in mobilizing the entire labour movement of Canada against any sort of long range and substantial trade policy dislocation.
Already Mr. Burt, the leader of the Auto Workers Union, has spoken out. The Minister said he was not surprised that the union did not feel the benefits were high enough, but because the benefits are so small they have now decided to go out and launch a national campaign to try and turn public opinion against this agreement. Why are they doing this? They are doing it because this Government will not accept the idea that if the community brings about dislocation for the general good then the community should pay the economic cost of such dislocation. We are asking these workers to pick up approximately 35 per cent of the TAB plan, because we have placed an upper limit of 65 per cent on their possible earnings. In effect, the Minister is saying to these workers that they must pay at least 35 per cent, or in other words take a 35 per cent slash in pay and, in addition, forfeit many of their fringe benefits if they are not compensated for them. So we think there is an extremely important principle involved at this time.
In other parts of the world this principle has been accepted. For example, in the European Coal and Steel Community there are provided tide-over allowances for workers, which run up to 100 per cent of their wages plus other forms of assistance, including supplementation or reduced wages. They may receive these benefits for up to two years. Because that guarantee has been given under the Treaty of Rome, the unions involved welcome any kind of automation dislocation or economic change that the Government may want to bring in. But unless you are prepared to accept this principle in Canada, every time the Government wants to bring about a major trade change it will have the labour movement involved mobilized against it, because of what I say is the very niggardly way the Government have adopted in dealing with the dislocation which will take place.
In the United States Secretary McNamara gave a flat undertaking, when the Government closed down 95 military bases, that the workers affected would receive their salaries, would be retrained if necessary, and
June 30, 1965

that the Government would pay the expenses of moving them, so that in effect they would suffer no economic dislocation at all. We would suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that if he is not prepared to accept this principle, then he is opening the door to a great deal of unrest between organized labour and the Government. I hope I am wrong in this contention, but the indications we have received from the trade union movement are that this will be the ultimate consequences of enacting this legislation unless some very substantial changes are made.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This was certainly borne out, Mr. Chairman, at the hearings in Washington when one of the senior officials of the U.A.W., Mr. Leonard Woodcock, Vice-President, testifying before the Committee said, as recorded at page 12 of his brief:
-it will be impossible to mobilize future labour movement support for trade liberalization unless and until it is demonstrated that meaningful assistance can and will be provided.
The United States Vice President of that union was laying down a warning to Government that unless almost complete protection is given, the labour force will rise up and resist the very changes and trade policies that many of us are convinced are going to be necessary if we are to adjust in the modern world.
We should look at the actual proposals themselves in order to back this up. As I have said, the first and most obvious one is the limitation. How do you justify telling a working man that because you are going to put him out of work, through no fault of his own, he is only going to get 65 per cent of his normal salary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Seventy five per cent.


Reid Scott: It could go as high as 75 per cent, provided that is not above the 65 per cent general average. However, even taking that figure, what is the working man going to do to get the balance? Why should he be required, because you have done something over which he has no control, to accept this slash in income? Most of these people, like all of us, have their incomes pretty well committed and cannot accept a 25 or 35 per cent slash in income.
The Minister was good enough to admit that even these benefits might appear generous over and above those paid under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which have always been an impossible disgrace in any
Supply-Labour
event; but merely because 36 per cent is low does not make 62 or 65 per cent an adequate figure. I want to suggest as strongly as I can to the Minister that he should really seriously consider whether this is not the appropriate time to enunciate these same strong trade adjustment principles that have been accepted and enacted in many other parts of the world. I suppose the Government has made up its mind, and nothing that anyone on this side of the House can say will change it, but I do feel that it is embarking on a very serious trend which will result in a lot of needless quarrelling and tension between organized labour and Government in the future.
The automotive workers union I thought made some very reasonable proposals to the Government when they met, and I want to place them on the record. They have six points which, if accepted, would have assured their complete co-operation, instead of what is now their outright opposition. First of all they wanted preferential hiring of displaced workers to ensure that those who lost their jobs as a result of the program would be given every possible assistance to remain in the industry, and not lose seniority, pension, vacation and other credits, as well as the level of wages they had achieved in the industry. What is unreasonable about that? It seems to be a perfectly proper submission to make.
Second, they wanted an eamings-related adjustment benefit payable during the period of transfer from one job to another, or during the period of retraining. What is unreasonable about that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have met that.


Reid Scott: Yes, but very niggardly, and in a way in which everybody but the Government is convinced is hopelessly unfair.
Third, they wanted transfer allowances covering the cost of transportation of the displaced worker and his family, as well as his furnishings, to a new location after he is reemployed, or to a training centre away from home. What is unfair about that? What is unfair about asking, if you are going to be moved as a result of Government action, to be compensated for the cost entailed? Why should the worker bear that cost?
Fourth, they asked for federal Government action to end discrimination in hiring practices in the industry, so that older workers who may be displaced will not be refused employment. Again, what is unreasonable about that? I should like to hear from the

June 30, 1965
Supply-Labour
Minister as to why the Government could not accept that proposal.
Fifth, they asked for Federal Government initiative to obtain management co-operation in having advance notice of major changes in the levels of employment in the auto and auto parts industry, in order to minimize the effects of dislocation. Again, what is unreasonable about that? Why should they be told on a week end that 500 men are going to be laid off?
Finally, they asked for supplementary pension benefits payable to older displaced workers who may be retired early. Again, that is a reasonable proposal which, if it had been accepted, would have assured the co-operation of the trade union movement.
As I have said, many of these proposals have been accepted in other parts of the world and in other jurisdictions. Had they been accepted here, this scheme could be launched with the support of the trade union movement instead of in the face of what appears at the moment to be its bitter opposition.
Our second objection, aside from the inadequacy of the allowances, is the veto power that is given to the companies. Today on orders of the day we asked the Minister whether or not the companies would be required to make contributions to the TAB fund and the Minister quite candidly, as is the case, admitted that there was no requirement for other than voluntary payments on behalf of the companies. It is not good enough for the Minister,-and we are not going to pass this item until we get an answer-to get up and tell us that he does not anticipate having such a problem placed before him. We all know that the Minister never anticipated having to bring in this program, because when we first began to ask questions months ago we were told there would be lots of employment, no dislocation and that no one had to worry. It was not until the United States union representatives appeared before a Congressional Committee and urged it to put pressure on Canada to bring in an adjustment assistance scheme, that any action was really obtained, and I have the transcript of the statements that were made at that time.
It is not enough for the Minister to get up and tell us that he does not think there is any problem and that the companies will pay. We want to know what is going to happen, what your plans, proposal and programs are going to be in the event that the motor companies decline to make these payments. As the hon. Member for Ontario has said, they

are pretty tough cookies. It is very hard to get even the SUB plans put into agreements. I do not think they are necessarily going to run down here with $700,000 or $800,000 and hand it over to the federal treasury. We want to know what will happen in the event this takes place.
Finally, we should like to obtain some information from the Government as to why nothing has been done to ensure that the price cuts or savings to the companies are passed on to the consumer in the form of some kind of lower prices. I know the companies have stated that they intend to use this money for expansion, but all the indications we can see in the press from statements that have been made that there is going to be no price reduction, and no benefit to be passed on to the consumer at least for the foreseeable future. I could quote, although we do not want to hold this item up, many of the articles that have appeared in such papers as the Financial Post, the Globe and Mail, the Windsor Star, Time and other periodicals -which all indicate there is going to be no price cut passed on to the consumer.
This is a completely indefensible position, because of the very substantial profits that are amassed by these Canadian companies. According to one estimate, the annual average profit of the automobile manufacturers has often run to about 30 per cent of their net worth; that is the total amount of their investment capital, compared with the normal 10 to 15 per cent. One Federal official has estimated that in a good year the profit earned by one of the leading Canadian auto producers might run as high as 80 to 90 per cent of its investment capital.
These companies have money coming out their ears, and do not require the $50 million bonanza in order to finance their expansions. They have lots of money, and there is no reason in the world why some action cannot be taken toward lowering the price of cars. We have made a rough estimate and feel that it would be possible to have an immediate price cut of about 4 per cent in the wholesale price, and that this could be followed by other cuts at a later date.
* (4:40 p.m.)
This would eventually result in a 17 per cent reduction in the price of cars to Canadians. If the companies refuse to pass this on, the Government has the simple expedient of lowering the tariff payable by individuals who buy cars in the United States; and this, of course, would immediately force the companies into price reductions.
June 30, 1985

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we again want to emphasize the general desirability of the objectives, and we again want to urge the Minister that he reconsider the level of benefits, because this action will likely set a pattern for almost all of our trade adjustment figures in the years ahead. Unless the level is substantially increased you will engender hostility and lack of co-operation among the trade movement generally in Canada.
We would like to see some form of requirement placed in the legislation so that the companies will be obligated and required to make these contributions. We simply do not feel it is good enough to leave it on a purely voluntary basis and to trust in the social conscience of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, because to my knowledge they have never displayed any great sense of social responsibility except at the urging of the trade union movement. Finally, we would hope that the Government would take some action to pass on the price savings that the companies are enjoying to the Canadian public.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Ricard:: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was asked a direct question by the hon. Member for Ontario with regard to whether there was any possibility in the Minister's mind that this measure would apply at some time in the future to the textile industry and the steel industry. I wish to add to the industries mentioned by the hon. Member the rubber industry, the clothing industry and the shoe industry. I have been sent here by my people to look after their interests, and since there are quite a few companies in my riding of the types I have mentioned I should like to ask the Minister if he contemplates the possibility of extending the privileges of this measure to these other industries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few comments in reply to remarks made by hon. Members. First of all, there is no class of workers whose benefits under the TAB plan will be lower than under a SUB plan. The TAB benefits will generally be greater. In the case of workers in automobile parts plants who are not covered by SUB plans the total TAB benefit payment will be paid out of this fund to a maximum amount of close to $75 per week at present. This is not a copy of the American plan. The purpose of my visit to Washington was to find out in fact what the American plan was and to exchange views
Supply-Labour
with the Secretary of Labour of the United States on our respective approaches to these plans.
We expect that the benefits will be paid by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The TAB benefits will be retroactive to the beginning of any lay-off and there will not be a 30 day waiting period as suggested by the hon. Member for Ontario, but a waiting period of one week which he suggested is provided under SUB plans.
With respect to the points made by the hon. Member for Danforth, it is a fact that we are breaking new ground in establishing this plan in Canada. It is a very important new step. We are taking the lead in this direction. This is the first time it has ever been done. Our plan is as good as the United States plan and compares favourably with any such plan anywhere in the world. We have accepted the proposal of the United Automobile Workers that we develop an earnings related transitional benefit program. In addition, the duration of benefits will extend up to a year, and for workers in training an additional six months of TAB benefits will be provided so that the maximum will be a year and a half. We are also making available to the workers grants for relocation, as was announced in our mobility program. Any workers dislocated under this agreement will be eligible for the grants under our new mobility program.
We have accepted in great measure the proposals put forward by the United Automobile Workers and I venture to suggest that once this plan is fully understood by the automobile workers there will be much less resistance than was suggested by the hon. Member for Danforth, because we are putting forward in Canada a plan at least as good as that put forward in the United States and there is no indication that in that country the automobile workers or unions will oppose the plan. At least, they have not done so to this point. I venture to suggest that when this plan is fully understood and the built-in benefits for the workers are fully understood, support for the plan will increase.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister knows the American plan is not settled yet and is still before various committees. I do not want to go into the figures because of that fact, but if it should turn out that the American plan provides higher benefits once their scheme is completed and the final figures are drawn, would the Minister be prepared to amend the Canadian legislation then, so they would conform?

June 30, 1965
Supply-Labour


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman. We could not accept the view that our policy should be determined by the final outcome of the policy in the United States. We could not do that in the Department of Labour or elsewhere. At the moment, however, as we see their plan developing our plan is as good, and I think definitely superior in certain aspects with respect to protections for workers, because under our proposal the SUB fund and the SUB credits for workers will be fully protected and not used up, and thus will be available for subsequent lay-offs. This is a very important point that is not covered in the United States. The companies are also requested to come forward to assist in the transition, which is not being done in the United States, although it has been asked by leading members of the Congressional Committee.
The hon. Member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has asked about the application of this new lead to other situations in the country. That is a matter of Government policy which is under consideration and any decision in this regard will be announced in the usual way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister a question about the estimate on unemployment. I want to say that this supplementary vote and the other one brought in by the Minister of Industry, which has just been dealt with, ought to be called two items for the repair of the damage done by the Minister of Industry who in his haste concocted an agreement without looking fully into what the effects of the agreement would be. When this agreement, which was signed by the Minister of Industry on behalf of the Government and never referred to Parliament, was first made public we drew attention to the fact that there were three groups of people to whom some attention would have to be paid.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The first were the workers who would be unemployed and would suffer economic dislocation; second, the small parts manufacturers who would have to retool their plants or relocate them, and third, the consumers of Canada who are losing some $50 million a year because of the access given United States cars and parts into Canada, and who have a right to expect cheaper cars.
Now, the first two calamities have come about, the unemployment and dislocation of the small parts manufacturers. Unfortunately, we have not seen the third effect, which is

an improvement in the price of Canadian cars. I think it will be quite a while until we see any improvement in that direction. I regret that both the previous item, with which we dealt, and this one have been brought into the House merely as supplementary estimates. It seems to me we ought to have had legislation so that there would be spelled out on the statute books the precise terms and conditions under which these various plans will operate. Both of them are going to operate on an ad hoc basis, with very little detailed information except what we can collect in this short period when these two items are before the Committee of Supply.
I want to protest most vigorously this method of dealing with such an important question as the dislocation of hundreds of workers in the automobile industry, without any legislation and without any real information as to the kind of plans which the Government has devised in the hope of providing some amelioration during this dislocation period. I wanted to ask the Minister something about the $5 million estimate. Has the Department of Labour or the Department of Industry made any estimate of the total number of workers in the automobile industry who are likely to be unemployed as a result of this agreement? Has the Minister any information as to the average length of time this unemployment is likely to continue? Has the Minister's department made any estimate as to the total amount of money that will be required? Is this $5 million simply a figure pulled out of the air, just as the Minister of Industry did in providing an estimate of assistance to the small parts manufacturers, or is it based on any figure as to how many persons are likely to be unemployed? I should like the Minister to give us some idea of the research that has been done in this field. We want to know whether or not this $5 million is adequate and over what period of time it is likely to be needed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be frank with the hon. Member and say it is difficult to make any precise estimate because of the pattern of the lay-offs, which is difficult to determine. As an illustration, I may say that the projection of lay-offs by the Ford Motor Company changed at times from week to week. We have attempted to make estimates of the cost, for example, of the Ford lay-off, but they are just as good as the assumptions about the length or duration of the lay-off and the number involved, and these change very quickly.
June 30, 1965

We have thought that for this year we are likely to be taking care of the situation more than adequately by providing $5 million. It certainly will meet any situation that may arise in this year. A yardstick for a precise forecast as to the pattern of lay-offs is something that cannot be provided, because the automobile companies have not fully determined their plans and the parts companies have not yet fully felt the effects of the automotive agreement.
We are now meeting, through this, the temporary dislocation but we are keeping in mind, of course, as the hon. Member will appreciate the additional benefits to the inindustry and to the economy through this increased production and employment. It is for this reason we thought it reasonable that public funds ought to be spent to assist the workers. I cannot give a more precise estimate than that, for the reasons I have given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree fully with the Minister that public funds ought to be spent to help workers, if this rationalization of the automotive industry is going to benefit the economy as a whole, as we hope it will. Certainly, in that case, the economy as a whole has to make a financial contribution to any of those who are going to suffer economic loss as a result of this rationalization process.
I should like to know to what extent the automobile industry is going to contribute to this. All I have been able to gather from the Minister's remarks is that the automobile industry will only contribute if it chooses to do so, by making payments into the Government fund on the same basis as it would have paid into SUB, which it would be required to do under the collective bargaining agreement. What I have not had clearly explained yet by the Minister is what the Government does in the event the Ford Motor Company decides not to participate. As I understand it, any company which does not have a collective bargaining agreement containing a provision for SUB, then a payment under TAB will be made to those employees. Where a company has a SUB provision in its collective bargaining agreement but does not make payments into the Government fund, what is the position of the workers then? I know the Minister said a short time ago he did not want to be flippant and say this was a hypothetical case, but we have to deal with hypothetical cases. The Government is asking us to approve a sum of money to be spent under certain terms and conditions. We want
Supply-Labour
to know what is going to happen to these workers. It is not really a hypothetical case.
If one may judge by this morning's press, the Ford Motor Company is making somewhat hostile noises about this plan. We are not sure whether or not they are going to co-operate with the Government. I have not been able to understand from what the Minister has said why this plan should not be compulsory. The automobile companies are getting $50 million a year in benefits. The taxpayers of Canada were not asked about this and Parliament was not asked about it. It has been compulsory so far as we are concerned. The workers who are laid off find that it is compulsory for them. Nobody asked them if they wanted to be laid off or wanted this plan approved. I see no reason why the companies should not be required to co-operate by making their SUB payments to the Government fund. I want to ask the Minister, if a company decides to exercise its option and not co-operate, what position will the Government take? What is the position of the workers, because it is the workers about whom I am concerned in this matter? [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I might be permitted to reassure the hon. gentleman that in spite of the newspaper report to which he has referred, I do not believe one needs to contemplate that the Ford Company will not co-operate in this plan. Even in the worst case, an individual worker would qualify either for TAB, as outlined here, or SUB if that is available. If there is no SUB plan then he gets TAB. If he qualifies for and the company does not want to co-operate, then the worker will be able to draw SUB-


Mr. Roxburgh:: Five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the Chair so that the House may proceed to the consideration of private Members' business.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: I understand that when the legislation comes before the House later today, I hope, the Minister of Industry will be giving an undertaking that the Order in Council designating "designated areas" under clause 2C of the bill will be tabled on the resumption of the session after the summer

June 30, 1965
Supply-Labour
recess and be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development. This will present an opportunity to discuss the criteria applicable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: This being so, I would ask unanimous consent to forego private Members' hour today and to continue to sit after six o'clock with a view to completing the business of the House-the bill which we have been discussing, Bill C-129-and interim supply, and the supplementary estimates which were under consideration. Then I think there is a question of concurrence in a report of the Internal Economy Commission made some weeks ago. But we would finish the whole thing tonight and then adjourn until Monday, September 27. The form of the motion would be the same as the one used at Christmas.


Michael Starr: I have only one question to ask of the Leader of the House. It is this. Is he asking for unanimous consent to Bill No. C-129 being given third reading, also?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would agree to setting some limit on the hour to which we might sit? It could always be extended later. It seems to me there should be some limit, say ten o'clock or eleven o'clock. If we find by that time we have not made satisfactory progress it would be necessary to come back on Friday. I am afraid that under the arrangement the hon. gentleman has suggested we might find ourselves sitting until five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning and it seems to me this would be an absurd way of carrying on Government business.


George James McIlraith: No. I would hope we need not set any precise hour. I have been trying to canvass hon. Members generally. If at eleven o'clock we find ourselves in difficulty, I am sure the good sense of the House will prevail. This will be a better way of doing things than to set a definite hour at this moment.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: As the Member responsible for the motion to be discussed during the private Members' hour, I should like to say that I have no intention whatsoever of delaying the recess-none whatsoever. But unless we can reach a unanimous decision to finish tonight I do not intend to give up the private Members' hour. Every time a minor occur-

rence of some kind or other arises, a move is made to do away with the private Members' hour. Just last week the same thing happened; it was very important for a lot of people to blow off steam, but it did no good as far as the agricultural picture was concerned because the necessary arrangements were set up by the provincial ministers of agriculture and by the federal Minister.
I will say this, and then I will sit down. If we can receive unanimous consent to finishing tonight, I am all for it; and I really mean it. But if not, I reserve my right to speak in the private Members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed we proceed on the basis suggested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.



[Stage Direction]
5c. To extend the purposes of Labour vote 5, main estimates, 1965-66 to include authority for payments of transitional assistance, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries who become unemployed as a result of the operation of the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products, $5,000,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One question following the reply which the Minister of Industry was giving. If I understood him correctly in the case of a firm which does not co-operate and has a contract which includes SUB provisions, the workers it employs will receive only the SUB benefits and not the TAB benefits. It seems to me it is most unfair that workers in one plant will get TAB benefits while those in another will get SUB benefits because employers may refuse to co-operate. I realize the Minister has said this is not likely to happen. Has he had any assurance from the Ford Motor Company of Canada that it will participate in this plan and contribute to TAB along the lines suggested?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We are having discussions with the Ford Motor Company and as I said earlier I am satisfied they will have a satisfactory outcome.
Mr. Scot!: The Minister of Industry told us that where companies have these SUB benefits in their agreements and a company does not participate, the workers will
June 30, 1965

take these benefits in place of the other scheme.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
My question is: What happens in a case such as I understand exists in Windsor, where of the 500 workers who were laid off a large percentage are not eligible for the SUB benefits because they have not been employed long enough by the company. Therefore you have a situation where, if the Ford Motor Company did not co-operate, they would not be eligible for benefits under the collective agreement. In that case, what provision is made so that these workers will receive the 65 per cent, or whatever the figure works out at, in their particular case?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Labour has made it quite clear that any worker in any company who is not eligible under the collective labour agreement will receive the TAB payments. This is quite regardless of the position taken by the company. If he is not eligible for SUB payments, he will get, as an individual worker, the TAB payments.


Reid Scott: That will apply even in the case of a company which has a SUB plan and which declines to co-operate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in Committee of Ways and Means on the following resolution:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1966, the sum of $15,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to participate in this discussion on interim supply, with reference chiefly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This isn't interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Interim Supply
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-130, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1966.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 29, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,292,282.42, being the aggregate of:
(a)	four twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except external affairs item 15, mines and technical surveys item 70; and external affairs item 20 for which the proportion is three twelfths, $1,456,413,323;
(b)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 25 and 45, legislation item 15, and loans, investments and advances item L30 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $4,664,625;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of northern affairs and national resources item 15, (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $2,258,500;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 5 and 60, fisheries item 10, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, northern affairs and national resources item 45, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $9,566,025;
(e)	seven twelfths of all the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (b) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, $162,394,142.75;
(f)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 17b, 25b and 35b, mines and technical surveys item 70b, and loans, investments and advances item L78b, (Schedule D) of the said supplementary estimates, $7,245,666.67;
(g)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of finance item 15b, (Schedule E) of the said supplementary estimates, $8,750,000,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, when I rose a few minutes ago I was not paying close enough attention to what you had been saying; I was listening to my advisers. But I will correct that for the future.
On the subject of interim supply I propose dealing with the situation which has come to a head in Canada recently, based on the findings of the Dorion inquiry.
I think this is one of the most serious problems that has faced our country; it is

June 30. 1965
Interim Supply
perhaps the most serious in the history of our country. There may have been other instances in the past when Parliament was disturbed and the country upset over problems within Government circles, but I believe this is the first instance in our history when there appears to have been a creeping encroachment of international crime into high circles in government; and this is cause tor alarm among all Canadians. As far as I am concerned, it is the major point of the whole trouble. It was mentioned by the Prime Minister himself last night, rather belatedly, recognizing the fact that, as he put it, we must deal with the sinister and growing involvement of crime in politics.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Before dealing with some of the factors I should like to express my appreciation of the action taken throughout this very difficult and trying period by a man whom I have not met, but whose name has been mentioned here, at the inquiry and in the papers, Mr. Pierre Lamontagne, the lawyer in Montreal. I think he has shown, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, a devotion to duty and to the cause of justice that is highly creditable. The pressure that he was subjected to, as appears from a reading of the report of Mr. Justice Dorion, is an indication that only a man of sterling qualities could have resisted that pressure. He is a credit to his profession and a credit to Canada.
I quote from page 99 of the report, just to indicate the pressure he was under in the opinion of Mr. Justice Dorion:
It none the less becomes perfectly clear that this intervention by Mr. Letendre-
Who occupied a very prominent position as Executive Assistant-
-greatly contributed to heighten the impression on Mr. Lamontagne's mind that influential persons responsible for the government of this country were concerting their efforts to lead him to agree to the release of Lucien Rivard on bail.
You could not gain any other impression if you read the record of the constant telephone calls, interviews and suggestions-suggestions that people high up in the Government were concerned with Mr. Lucien Rivard. And Mr. Lamontagne resisted those pressures.
I want to pay my compliment to the hon. Member for Yukon who brought this matter to the attention of the House of Commons and to the public of Canada. I was present in the House on November 23, 24 and 25 last year when the hon. Member raised the issue, and I recall very well how he asked the

Minister of Justice of that day to take certain appropriate action. As reported at page 10386 of Hansard for November 23, the hon. Member for Yukon, in summing up his presentation, said this, and these words, I think, deserve quoting again:
This is the extent of the message that I am trying to get across to committee members, and I say that it is an indictment of the actions of the minister that he has not referred this matter to the proper law officers of the crown, to whom it should have been referred, to obtain their opinion. It is an indictment of the minister to have acted with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in a judicial capacity, which is not his function. This is what we have courts for, and I say that it is an indictment of the activity of the minister in making the decision that he did, shelving the matter.
At page 135 of the report of Mr. Justice Dorion are to be found these words:
Considering that he was called upon to hand down a quasi-judicial decision;
The Honourable the Minister of Justice, before reaching a decision, should have submitted the case to the legal advisers within his Department with instructions to complete the search for facts if necessary and secured their views upon the possible perpetration of a criminal offence by one or several of the persons involved.
The vindication of the hon. Member for Yukon is complete. He did on that occasion what I hope any hon. Member would do under similar circumstances-he disclosed a situation that required cleaning up. He took his chance in this House, as many people have to do when they deal with topics which are unpopular at the time, but he had the courage of his convictions, laid the case before the House of Commons, endured the cries from the other side of "Smear", "Innuendo" and "McCarthyism", and endured for the last seven months a type of persecution which has been carried on with people connected with Government circles. But now his actions have been completely vindicated.
This is the type of service for one's country that deserves commendation, because, Mr. Chairman, in the background of all this is a narcotics case. There is nobody in this country who has not a horror of the dope peddling which goes on. We are aware of the ruination of young lives that results from this terrible traffic. This is the shadow which was cast over the whole investigation and over the whole problem-the shadow of drug peddling, of narcotics, that carries with it the destruction of human lives. That destruction starts, as we have read so many times in newspapers and in magazine articles, with our younger people.
June 30, 1365

In the course of the debate yesterday, Mr. Chairman, some Members who participated were critical of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and no defence of that magnificent body has come from Government circles. We asked for it at different times during the last several months. The former Minister of Justice did not defend that force in this House. The Prime Minister at some time or other must express his opinion of that body because this is a body in which Canada has justly taken pride for generations. I do not know of any police force in the world that is held in higher regard generally than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. During the course of my lifetime I have had occasion, as have thousands of Canadians, to rejoice in the fact that we have such a superior body of people devoting their lives to law enforcement. The Government of this country should stand behind the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and deal with the critics who from time to time attempt to downgrade that body of devoted servants of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my remarks this afternoon will be made with or without the presence of the Prime Minister. I regret that he is unable perhaps to be in the Chamber today but I cannot choose the time when I speak to fit in with his presence here. The Prime Minister, in my opinion, is the central figure on whose shoulders rests the responsibility for the problem that has faced us for several months, and which has yet in some parts to be resolved. I am not implicating him in any charge of smuggling narcotics, but I place squarely on the Prime Minister's shoulders the responsibility for not taking adequate steps earlier to deal with the circumstances in Government circles and within his party which have caused disturbances in the minds of Canadians regarding Parliament as a whole. This lack of action has caused a loss in confidence in the Government of this country and has created a lack of confidence in the Department of Justice and in law enforcement in Canada. No one who pauses to think for a moment about this sordid affair can be anything but distressed by the fact that the Prime Minister did not take some earlier action.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Last evening I heard the Prime Minister on television, or perhaps it was on radio this morning, make the following statement, and I know the first few words are accurate but I am not sure about the concluding words: "When it appeared last fall that an inquiry
Interim Supply
should be held", we arranged for that to be done. This situation did not just appear on the horizon. The matter was discussed in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that he and his Ministers had not been active during the weeks and months that preceded that disclosure.
Had it not been for this disclosure in November, what might have happened? Would all of this sordid business have been swept under the rug, hushed up and kept quiet? Would the Canadian people never have heard about the activities of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the activities of an executive assistant and the activities of a special assistant- people who were close to the Ministers of the Crown? Would all of this have been concealed?
The Prime Minister, speaking outside the House, said that last fall when it appeared that an inquiry was necessary he took action. He tried to create the impression that he was vigorous in seizing this matter when it was brought to his attention. It was brought to his attention much earlier than November 23. The hon. Member for Calgary North on November 24 asked two or three questions of the Prime Minister as to when he had been informed of this particular problem, to which some rather evasive answers were given. At page 10429 of Hansard one will find the following recorded:


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer touched upon the ambiguity I mentioned, which was the reason for my question. When the Prime Minister said he was informed before the minister's estimates were put before the house, does he mean he was informed yesterday or a week ago? When was he informed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I was informed on the day before his estimates were brought before the house.
We have heard quite a lot about the selective amnesia of the Prime Minister, but we know now from the record, as a result of his sudden recollection of events and his letter to Mr. Justice Dorion, that he had been informed as far back as September 2. When it appeared to the Prime Minister, if I may use his words, on September 2 that there was trouble within high circles of Government, why did he not take immediate action? Why did he postpone taking action? Was he a party to the covering-up job? This is a serious question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. Member is talking about a judicial matter and wants to be exceedingly fair. Would the hon. gentleman tell us what it is he understands the Prime Minister was informed of on September 2? Was it not merely that Mr. Denis, an executive assistant to one of his colleagues, was accused of offering a bribe and that this matter was under investigation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I will read from the report at page 122, and I might say that I have read the entire report. Perhaps the Minister of Transport has not read it. At
page 122 of the Dorion report the following is stated:
It was only on September 2, during the plane trip from Charlottetown to Ottawa, that the Minister of Justice informed the Prime Minister that his Parliamentary Secretary was involved in the Rivard case and supposed to have brought pressures on to the Counsel for the United States Government to incite him to agree to bail being granted to Lucien Rivard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman one more question. The hon. gentleman has said that he has read the report. Did the hon. gentleman read the evidence, because I think if he had he would recall that no evidence to that effect was given at the hearing, but that evidence to the contrary was given by the Minister of Justice. I am sure he will recall that evidence to the contrary was given in this House by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a most remarkable intervention on the part of the Minister of Transport. I read from the report of Mr. Justice Dorion. Is the Minister of Transport now finding fault with that report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege and it is this. I am not quarrelling at all with the report, as the hon. gentleman has suggested, and I do not want to get into a quarrel with him. I am sure both of us want to be fair. All I am saying is that even the Chief Justice might conceivably have been mistaken as to a statement of fact, and all of us in this House do know that the evidence on this point was all in the opposite direction. We all know there was not one tittle of evidence produced anywhere to support that statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will make allowances for the time taken up by these interruptions.

The Minister of Transport now wishes us to refer to the evidence. That is what Mr. Justice Dorion has done. He heard the evidence and he has re-read it, and now through this report he has given us his findings and conclusions. This document has been tabled in the House of Commons for the information of the people of Canada, and are we not now to place any reliance on it? I certainly place reliance on this document, which I think is a fine piece of work. I have confidence in this judge, who I am sure during this long inquiry used the greatest possible care, as he did in reporting his findings.


Michael Starr: He knows more about it than any of you fellows.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sure the judge used great care in preparing his findings for presentation to this House and to the people of Canada. This is a fine summation of the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask one more question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not mind answering a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman agree with Mr. Justice Dorion's conclusions about the R.C.M.P.?


Michael Starr: That certainly is a smart question.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will answer the question, but perhaps the Minister will rise in a minute and apologize to the House for shouting "smear" last November when the hon. Member for Yukon raised this matter.


Michael Starr: He has not got enough backbone to do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the question asked me by the Minister of Transport, the master of red herrings, of course I accept Mr. Justice Dorion's criticisms and conclusions with respect to certain actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But I would say to the Minister of Transport that no police force was more restricted in its operations than that force was when it started and continued its inquiries. Mr. Justice Dorion's report indicates that the police started their inquiries, were then pulled back and restricted, then allowed to proceed and then pulled back again. If we had the full story of what transpired between members of that force and the Ministers of the Crown we
June 30, 1965

might have another scandal to disclose to the people of Canada, because that force certainly had imposed on it the making of a restricted inquiry.
In order to satisfy my diversionary friend across the way, my friend on some occasions but not always, I would refer to page 10388 of Hansard, for November 23, 1964 where the following interjection while the hon. Member for Yukon was speaking is recorded:


John Whitney Pickersgill: More smears.
That is what I said the Minister said. He shouted it and he should now apologize to the House.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman read the context, because surely it is a little unfair to read that phrase without knowing to what it was applied?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Transport can make his own speech. When he does I will give him the assistance he has been giving me. Let me go on. I want to deal with what the Prime Minister has been saying. The Prime Minister now says "We must deal with the sinister and growing involvement of crime in politics".


Michael Starr: He means Liberal polities.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As found on page 10429 of Hansard for November 24, 1963 the hon. Member for Yukon asked that that be done, and here I quote the hon. Member:
-will he perhaps appoint some other body, such as a royal commission, to investigate not only the matters referred to by the Minister of Justice but other matters specifically related to the possibility of international crime organizations having infiltrated other offices of cabinet ministers of the government?
Here is the reply of the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, that is a very different matter which is far reaching and would involve a great deal of consideration and discussion. If there is any evidence to support the very serious statement made by my hon. friend perhaps he will produce that evidence, and the necessary steps will be taken.
The evidence has been produced by Mr. Justice Dorion's Commission. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to take the necessary steps? Seven and a half months have gone by. He said that much consideration was required.
On April 13 the hon. Member for Cumberland raised the same issue and asked for a Royal Commission to investigate the infiltration of international crime into high circles within government. The Prime Minister now says, "We must deal with the sinister and
Interim Supply
growing involvement of crime in politics". He has certainly got to deal with it and he has to deal with it soon. There is no question that he has to clean house and not just play musical chairs. I think he will also have to have some second thoughts with regard to his party. Throughout the Dorion Commission report there are at least 20 statements with regard to contributions to party election funds.


Mr. Nielsen:: Liberal party funds.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You will find mention of the secretary-treasurer, I think it is, of the Liberal organization whose name was on a file and who apparently asked that he be kept informed about the Stonehill case. Throughout the report, page after page, you will find references to party funds, Rivard, the good friend of the party, help in election campaigns, contributions, $60,000 reported to have been available if Rivard had got bail.
These things put the Liberal party once again in the valley of humiliation where they were after the scandals of the late 1920's. What has happened to this great party that it can count narcotic peddlers among its friends? What goes on in the higher circles of the Liberal party? When the name of Rivard was mentioned by executive assistants and Parliamentary Secretaries to the Prime Minister himself and to the former Minister of Justice, did that name of Rivard mean nothing to these gentlemen? Of course it did. They knew who he was, a peddler of narcotics and reputed to be the friend of the Liberal party.
We have reached a sad state of affairs. There is lack of action by the Prime Minister. Where was he in November and December when the Royal Commission was set up and we were discussing this matter in the House? Away on an electioneering campaign instead of doing his duty here. The Prime Minister promises now to take action. He depicts himself on the television screen as a man of action. What action has he taken? All he gave us yesterday was a very short statement with regard to the resignation of the Minister of Justice. But then he says to the general public on television, "We must deal with the sinister and growing involvement of crime in politics".
Why did he not deal with it in September of 1964 when the name of Rivard came up and when he discovered later, after his memory had assisted him, that some of the people very close to him were involved with this man? We have had a whole galaxy of people

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
of the underworld mixed up in this case. This, Sir, is one of the most critical situations that has faced any government of this country. It is a very critical situation for Canada. I think it is deplorable that we have reached the stage in this country that we have to have a judicial inquiry which comes up with findings that international crime has infiltrated into high circles of the Government.
The man who can take action is the Prime Minister, but he is not a man of action. He will just shift and sway and, as I have said on more than one occasion, make statements in the House on which I am not able to place complete reliance. Why did the Prime Minister not indicate immediate action today with regard to some of these incidents? Why did he not say that he was going to clean house in so far as his party is concerned? Why did he not say there will be no more mixing with peddlers of dope, no more connection between the great Liberal party of this country and these international gangsters? One draws the conclusion from reading page after page of this report that something is being done for Lucien Rivard because he is a party supporter, and there may be some money available to assist the party in the next election.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Surely, the Prime Minister and his Ministers were not unaware of these undercurrents within the ranks of their assistants. I hope they are aware now that they must take precautions. I call upon the Prime Minister to announce a plan to cure this sore which is besetting the Government of this country and which is damaging the political life of this country, which is damaging this institution of Parliament. Unless there can be confidence in the Government of the country, what hope is there for Canada?


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I, as well as all other Members in the House, am extremely interested in the subject raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. It may be that some of our party will have something to say about it later. I had the opportunity to mention the subject last night when I was probably in a more charitable mood. I do not propose to take any more time on that subject and I shall leave it to other Members to discuss the subject of the Dorion Commission report.
I want to intervene to move the matters under discussion to something that may appear to many Members of the House far less interesting and dramatic, and I am inclined

to think it is less interesting and dramatic a subject. However, I believe it is a subject that has to be mentioned in this debate because it is a matter of considerable constitutional importance and a matter which the Government ought to have brought before this House by way of resolution. I refer to the proposed amendment of the British North America Act to add a new Section 71 A, reducing the powers of the Legislative Council of Quebec.
Members of this Committee will not need to be reminded that under the terms of the British North America Act, Section 92, the right to amend the constitution of a province is clearly given to the provincial legislature. If the Quebec legislature had acted, therefore, the matter would not be one which concerned this Parliament in any way at all. However, the Quebec legislature has not acted. Section 71 of the British North America Act clearly sets out that the Legislature of Quebec consists of two houses, one styled the Legislative Assembly and the other styled the Legislative Council. The Legislative Assembly recently passed an Act called the Quebec Parliament Act, which provided in effect that any money bill passed by the Legislative Assembly may go into effect one month after its passing, even if the Legislative Council has not accepted it. Bills, other than money bills, can go into effect after a longer period of delay if passed by the Legislative Assembly, without any regard whatever to the Legislative Council. In this matter, the council was willing to accept the restriction of its power, the clipping of its wings, except in two cases, one relating to the rights of minorities and the other where the constitution of either Canada or of the provinces was being dealt with.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these suggested compromises were not accepted by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, therefore, at the instance no doubt of the cabinet of that province has transmitted to the Governor General an address seeking an amendment to the British North America Act, and asked that it be forwarded to the Queen for eventual passage by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This takes the form of an amendment to the British North America Act, and the then Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, told us on June 16 that this was being forwarded with the advice that action be taken on it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in our view there are very serious and erroneous precedents
June 30, 1965

being established by this course of action. It is very clearly set forth in the White Paper that was filed by the Government itself just a few weeks ago relating to the amendment of the Constitution of Canada. This is a survey of the whole matter and was made under the direction of Hon. Guy Favreau, Minister of Justice, and dated February, 1965. At page 15 two principles were stated. I quote:
The first general principle that emerges in the foregoing resume is that although an enactment by the United Kingdom is necessary to amend the British North America Act, such action is taken only upon formal request from Canada. No act of the United Kingdom parliament affecting Canada is therefore passed unless it is requested and consented to by Canada. Conversely, every amendment requested by Canada in the past has been enacted.
I ask the House to note the second general principle which is stated here, and I quote:
The second general principle is that the sanction of Parliament is required for a request to the British Parliament for an amendment to the British North America Act. This principle-
This is referring to the sanction of Parliament.
-was established early in the history of Canada's constitutional amendments, and has not been violated since 1895. The procedure invariably is to seek amendments by a joint address of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate to the Crown.
There you have it, Mr. Chairman. In a statement put out by the Minister of Justice just a matter of three or four months ago reviewing this whole matter, it is stated with the utmost clarity that the principle that you only do this with the consent of Parliament has not been violated since 1895. Now, without any reference to this House whatever, it is proposed that we violate a principle that has been established and set out in this clear way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Will he not agree that that resolution, which I think was passed in 1871, was passed in respect of a situation altogether different from the situation now before us? It had to do with the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. This is a situation that was not envisaged by that resolution.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I was just going to answer that very point, which has been made by the Minister, because he made it before. Before I come to what I was going to say, however, may I give this by way of answer? According to page 15 of the Government's statement, from which I have just read, they were referring
Interim Supply
to general principles, and those general principles were that the sanction of Parliament was required in requesting these amendments. There is no limitation whatever suggested in that statement. A principle had been established, and had not been violated since 1895. The procedure was invariably to seek amendments by a joint address of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate to the Crown.
I admit, of course, that there are differences in different cases; but this is a general principle, and I suggest a sound principle, that there be no amendment to the Constitution of Canada passed without submission to and approval of this Parliament. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs took the view before, as he suggested in his question, that this statement of principle is not applicable. He says that the matter only affects the Province of Quebec. But, Mr. Chairman, on the face of it that is not a correct statement. When an amendment is sought to the British North America Act it requires the intervention and advice of the federal executive, and the Parliament of Canada is involved. A very dangerous precedent is set when amendments to the Constitution of Canada are made on the request of the executive alone.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as most Members of the House will be aware, we in this party have no brief at all for second, non-elected chambers. We indeed, have made our views clear a number of times, even in this session when we were discussing the other place and what we thought of its position in the constitutional set-up. However, I want to suggest to this House that constitutions are of fundamental importance and should not be changed by methods of dubious legality and dubious constitutionality. Constitutions are not the possession of an elected assembly alone, subject to immediate change at the request of an executive. In our view the constitution primarily belongs to the people, and we believe the people of Quebec have the right to be consulted.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Nor can it be overlooked that the apparent reason for the rushing through of this amendment by reason of arrangements privately negotiated between the right hon. Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec is, no doubt, that the Legislative Council stands as a barrier to the early enactment of the constitutional amending formula now known as the Fulton-Favreau formula.
I do not intend to repeat here the arguments for the view that the enactment of this

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
formula would impose a serious and perhaps fatal barrier to any changes in the Constitution of Canada, which the present dynamic needs of Canada require. It may well be that the people of Quebec will desire to have the powers of the Legislative Council emasculated or the Council totally abolished. It is quite a different thing, however, when the necessary constitutional amendments are to be rushed through without consultation with the people, without adequate discussion in Parliament, and for the purpose of fixing on the people of Canada a disastrous constitutional strait-jacket. It seems to me that for the sake of expediency, and political expediency at that, the course of constitutionality and legality-and indeed of Parliamentary control-is being abandoned in indecent haste. I think this Parliament should resent the way in which something as important as an amendment to our Constitution has been rushed through without even asking Parliament's approval.
In stating my view I should like it to be noted that I am repeating what has already been said by the provincial council of the New Democratic Party of Quebec. Although it made clear its opposition to non-elected legislative bodies, including the Senate of Canada and the Legislative Council of Quebec, it expressed profound disquiet as to the method adopted by the Lesage Government in the absence of consultation with the people of that province. I should like to express our profound disquiet with regard to this proposed amendment-it is true it comes from the Province of Quebec-which is to be forwarded to the Queen, presumably to be placed before her advisers in the United Kingdom. We regret, too, that instead of bringing this matter forward in the first instance so that it could be debated on a proper resolution, the Government should have chosen another course, making it necessary for us to deal with this important subject on a supply motion in the dying days of a session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. Member not agree that the matter in question involves an amendment to the constitution; the advice which the executive will give to Her Majesty will be to the effect that the matter in question involves an amendment to the constitution of Quebec and is of concern to that province only-not to this Parliament, not to the laws of Canada but only to the Province of Quebec? Would the hon. gentleman not agree that, to use the language of

Hodges v. The Queen, this is "purely a local matter"?


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, I certainly do not agree with the interpretation placed on this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It could have concerned the Province of Quebec solely if the legislature of that province had been able to act. I would say that had the people of Quebec been consulted, I, for one, would have been ready to put the stamp of approval on it within this Parliament. But I do not think there is any constitutional correctness in the course which has been adopted by the Cabinet or the executive of this Parliament in sending this thing forward. After all, the Cabinet did receive a petition from a current legislative body, the Legislative Council, not to send it forward. I say Members opposite have interfered in the affairs of Quebec by the course they have taken, and I regret they have done so.


Mr. Patterson:: Had the circumstances been different I would have dealt at greater length with the subjects I am now about to raise. I will now refer to them briefly in the hope that during the recess the Government will give these matters consideration and come forward with a solution to them.
I wish to speak of one or two matters concerning veterans affairs. The first concerns disability pensions. We all know that some time ago representations were made to the department regarding the necessity for substantial increases in disability pensions. Veterans look forward to something definite in this regard. The organizations speaking on their behalf expected that the Minister would bring in recommendations resulting in substantial upward revision of these pensions. However, some time ago the hon. gentleman rose to say there would be 10 per cent increase in these pensions.
Reactions on the part of veterans generally and the organizations representing them were critical of this announcement, and the reason is easy to recognize. It is disgraceful that some of these men should have to get by on the very small pensions they are receiving. Since this subject has been raised on a number of occasions, and representations have been made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs concerning it, I trust that during the next few months the whole matter will be considered most carefully- that the whole scheme of disability pensions will be thoroughly analysed and that the Department will come forward at an early
June 30. 1965

date with recommendations which will substantially improve the financial condition of those who are now receiving disability benefits.
There is one other matter I wish to deal with. It is the situation existing in the Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, with respect to the rates of pay of nursing orderlies. I will not go into detail; the Minister is familiar with the situation. A short time ago, after I had asked a question in the House, the Minister appeared to have found a solution to this problem. He repeated a statement he had made earlier to the effect that the matter was under consideration. I believe the time has come for a definite solution to be found. I believe those working in the Shaughnessy Hospital should receive incomes comparable with those received by people working in other similar institutions in the City of Vancouver. At the present time I understand there is a wide differential in these rates of pay received by nursing orderlies in the Shaughnessy Hospital as compared with their counterparts in other institutions in the city. The problem is so acute, now, that there is a real danger of deterioration in the standard of care which is given to the veterans in this institution. Not long ago I received a clipping-I do not have it here at this moment -outlining the danger which veterans are facing in this institution because the staff is shorthanded, orderlies are leaving, and new ones are being brought in constantly. All this is jeopardizing the care which our veterans are justified in expecting at this hospital.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I am not saying anything about the type of care that is being given to the full limits of the capacity of those who are engaged there; but because of these situations they are not able to cope with the problem and continue the high standard of care that is expected and desired. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here, and I hope he will convey to the Minister these particular problems and bring them to his attention once again with a view to having this situation rectified.
The other matter to which I want to call attention once again concerns superannuated civil servants. Here again is a matter that has been referred to many times and the Minister of Justice knows all about the problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He ought to.
Interim Supply


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "He ought to know", and I appreciate the fact that this hon. Member has made representations on this matter on many occasions, and others of us have done likewise. I think it is pathetic that some of the superannuated civil servants are expected to get by on the pittance they are now receiving. I know that many excuses are given. One excuse that is given, for instance, is that many of them are benefiting by other general legislation that has been passed, and so on. But I do not believe this should affect the pension that should be received by superannuated civil servants.
Many of these people have given long years of public service; they have served admirably in the public service of this country. Now they are eking out a bare existence, and I feel that the Government, if it would, could find some way of providing more adequate pensions to those who have been on pension for some time and are still receiving such a pitiful amount in this respect. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Finance once again to consider this whole matter. I suppose he would say it is constantly under review. Perhaps that is the trouble; it is constantly under review but very little is being done about it. I would ask, in the closing hours of this session, that once again the Minister give attention to this particular problem and try to do something to assist those who are suffering because of the inadequate pension they have received throughout the years.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, at this time when we are considering the granting of four months supply to the Government, rather than considering the annual appropriation of funds, there are two points I would like to raise in the closing moments of this session. It is three years ago this month that I was first elected to the Parliament of Canada, and this is the third time I have been placed in the position of speaking on matters of national importance on the day Parliament is going to adjourn. The timing of the debates and the timing of discussions on national expenditures could, believe me, be better arranged than I have witnessed during these three years.
I believe that every Member of the House is aware of the fact that I could not support the legislation with regard to the printing of bogus Canadian editions in this country. I stated publicly that I could not support the legislation because it granted exemptions to

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
Time and Reader's Digest. I not only made that statement a week ago today, but I have held that stand since the O'Leary report came down in 1961. In speaking on this point I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance because he listened to my arguments that there should not be any exemptions in that publications legislation, and when introducing amendments to the Bank Act-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I should remind the hon. Member-if he will resume his seat-that he cannot revive a matter on which there has been a decision of the House. I assume that the words he has just spoken were by way of introduction of another subject. But certainly the rules of the House do not allow an hon. Member to discuss a matter upon which there has been a resolution of this House.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, my remarks were certainly by way of introduction, because I intend to refer to the proposed amendments to the Bank Act, which have been referred for committee study and I understand will receive consideration by the committee even before this House resumes the session in the fall. I was referring to the introduction of the amendments to the Bank Act. On May 18 the Minister stated:
Before leaving the matter of ownership and control of banking, I should like to point out that there would be very serious implications for Canada if foreign owned banks or their agencies were free to do any substantial volume of banking in this country.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance, and I do it now, for not allowing any exemptions in the amendments to the Bank Act to allow foreigners to get into our banking world. I will not refer to the other field, Mr. Chairman, because I understand it has been closed to me for discussion; but if do not know the name of the other field to which I am referring, I will tell you out in the corridor later on.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Why there should be no exemption in some industries, and a wide-open exemption in another industry of which I know a bit and of which industry I am very fond, I do not know. But I extend congratulations to the Minister on not giving exemptions in the Bank Act even to a bank which has been established for 13 years in this country and is under foreign ownership. I have always worked on the basis that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but

obviously this principle does not hold water in some sections of Canada, even though I believe it is true, true, true.
The other matter I wish to refer to has to do with the pensions of certain R.C.M.P. officers. I was born in the City of Ottawa; I am a Canadian through and through, and I never thought I would live to see the day when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be publicly criticized in the Parliament of this nation by Members of the House of Commons, as was done yesterday evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I make no comment on the Dorion report in any manner, shape or form. That Commission was appointed by the Liberal Government of which I am a supporter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -and I have no comment on Mr. Justice Dorion. But when I find Members of Parliament standing up and criticizing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it provokes me no end. I believe that if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had less political interference there would be higher morale in the entire force, from the Commissioner down.
I specifically wish to refer to two former members of the force, Chief Superintendent Rene Jean Belec and Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras. I have in my hands the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, which I have studied at length and in some detail previously. In examining the operation of the Pension Act of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police you will find in section 27 these words, that any pension "shall be granted only in consideration of good and faithful service during the period in respect of which it is calculated". I draw that to your attention, Mr. Chairman. I will make further reference to it later. Then in Section 44 of the R.C.M.P. Pension Act you read this:
An officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency after ten years' service, is entitled to a pension for life-
And so on. Notice the phrase, "An officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency". If he is retired for misconduct or inefficiency, he can worry about his future; there will be no pension for him. But it says, "An officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency". So what
June 30, 1965

happens to Chief Superintendent Rene Jean B61ec and Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras? We have never been given the facts about these two former officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, both of whom were stationed in Montreal. I am told that Rene Jean Belec was the highest ranking officer in the Quebec division of the R.C.M. Police. I am told that Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras was in charge of drug investigations and rode herd over all the drug investigators of the R.C.M.P. during the last few months of his service with the R.C.M.P. But for causes never made known to the people of Canada the two of them were placed on the shelf for a while last fall. Interestingly enough it was during the fall that these accusations about drug peddling came to the fore. But they were not retired, they were just placed on the shelf, early in September, I believe.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I have in my hand what is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on December 8, 1964. It says:
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, advise that Chief Superintendent Rene John Belec of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, promoted to that rank effective October 1, 1963 by Order in Council P.C. 1963 31/1477 of 10th October, 1963, be compulsorily retired from the Force to promote efficiency.
"To promote efficiency" is not a phrase used in the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act. The Superannuation Act refers to "an officer who is retired compulsorily for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency". So here is a cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, the cause being "to promote efficiency."
We are told that there were defalcations of public moneys, or the false administration of public moneys, by these two men while officers of the R.C.M.P. We are not told this officially, we have to pick it up. But we are not given any open reason why these two men were retired.
The second order in council is the same date, and is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council. It says:
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, advise that Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, promoted to that rank effective October 15th, 1963 by Order in Council P.C. 1963-28-1547 of 24th October, 1963, be compulsorily retired from the Force to promote efficiency.
Interim Supply
I say there is something very peculiar when the words of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act are not followed to the letter. We are asked to observe the letter of the law. We appoint judges to the bench and employ police forces to get people to observe the letter of the law. Why not observe the letter of the law here instead of passing orders in council that give reasons for retiring people so that they can enjoy pensions which, if they were retired compulsorily for misconduct or inefficiency, would be withheld from them?
I also have a document which indicates why they were struck off strength, shall I say. The hon. Member for Fraser Valley talked of poor pensions for certain classes of people. This does not include former Chief Superintendent Belec, because I have here an order in council relating to him. This is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the Treasury Board, approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on February 11, 1965. I point out this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this matter. This Order in Council states:
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The Board recommends as follows:
Chief Superintendent Ren6 John Belec, who was compulsorily retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to promote efficiency on December 8, 1964, be granted, pursuant to sections 27(1) and 44 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, a pension of $6,624.00 per annum, based on his good and faithful service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force from June 27, 1933 to December 1957 and effective December 9, 1964.
With regard to Mr. Poitras, this gentleman really has a pension which strikes me as a "beaut". I hold in my hand an Order in Council dated February 11, 1965 which reads as follows:
Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras, who was compulsorily retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to promote efficiency-
You see how they get around the words of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
-on December 8, 1964, be paid, under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, an immediate annuity at the rate of $1,562.80 per annum from December 9, 1964, until such date as he attains the age of 65 years and thereafter at the rate of $1,953.50 per annum.
So he gets an increase of almost $400 a year when he turns 65 through this pension which was forced on him to promote the efficiency of the force, effective December 8,

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
1964. I say to you that in private industry and in other Departments of Government former employees are not treated in this manner or anything like it.
Last February there was brought down a return in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The number of the question was 2,603 and the heading in Hansard is "Criminal charges, Indian Affairs employees". The hon. Member asked:
Since January 1, 1952 has any employee, or former employee, of the Indian affairs branch been charged with contravening any of the provisions of the Criminal Code or any other federal statute and, if so, with respect to each such person by name what was (a) his position with the branch at the time the alleged offence took place (b) the nature of the alleged offence and, if any money was involved, the amount thereof and the details about it (c) the amount of restitution of any stolen or misappropriated money-
The answer takes up the entire page 11684 of Hansard for February 24 and shows eight cases in which people had misappropriated funds in the Indian Affairs Branch, and what their fate was. They are not identified by name, I am happy to say, because I do not wish to use their names. The former superintendent of an Indian agency, Ontario, misappropriated government funds in the amount of $5,894, paid it all back, and he resigned. A former clerk at an Indian agency, Ontario, misappropriated government funds in the amount of $1,330, paid it all back and he resigned. The former superintendent, Indian agency, Quebec, misappropriated property to the value of $1,355 and he was dismissed on October 15, 1958. Why could he not have been compulsorily retired so that he could promote efficiency in the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department?
A former clerk, Indian agency, Saskatchewan, for being short in departmental receipts to the extent of $173.62, was dismissed on August 28, 1957. I think that he too should have been compulsorily retired so that he could promote the efficiency of the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of the Government, and given a pension. The former superintendent of an Indian agency, Manitoba, misappropriated Government funds in the amount of $3,250.25, which he paid back, being dismissed on August 28, 1957. A former clerk, Indian agency, New Brunswick, misappropriated building materials and committed cheque forgeries in the amount of $897.46, paid it all back, and was dismissed on April 1, 1963. A former superintendent, Indian Agency, British Columbia

and Yukon, misappropriated $3,473, building materials and cheque forgeries, paid the entire amount back and was dismissed on January 1, 1963. A former clerk, Indian agency, British Columbia, misappropriated $1,325 in forged cheques, was brought to court on 22 charges of forgery, found guilty, is presently serving a one year sentence and was dismissed on April 1, 1964.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: No pension?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: No pension at all. These fellows were not compulsorily retired to promote efficiency in the Indian Affairs Branch but were dismissed just because they had done something they should not have done.
According to the way pensions are calculated in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, any pension shall be granted only in consideration of good and faithful service during the period in respect of which it is calculated. The businessmen in the House know very well that the longer a person is employed by a firm which operates a pension plan, the larger will be his pension. Not only does the pension become increased in value as continuity of office continues, but more and more the responsibility increases because more and more trust is placed in him, because people expect him to be a fit and proper person in whom to place responsibility.
But what happens in the R.C.M.P.? The longer a man is with the R.C.M.P. and the more senior his position becomes, the more responsibility he has. When he defaults, then the politicians do not calculate the last week or so of his service when he defaulted but go back over a long period of time and calculate the wonderful service he has given them. As his responsibility became bigger and bigger and his pay became larger and larger, so his pension became greater. But as his responsibility reached its zenith, the period when the greatest trust is placed in him, he then defaults. What happens? You do not consider that last week; you consider the 30 years prior to that when he was a good guy and had not defaulted. You calculate his pension on his 30 years service and forget the last week when he should have been dismissed for inefficiency.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I wonder whether I may ask the hon. Member a question. His statement seems to leave the inference that these pensions were granted on the recommendation of the governing officers of the R.C.M.P. It is my impression and understanding that those officers recommended their dismissal and that
June 30, 1965

the pensions were granted by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: My answer to that question is this. I read from an Order in Council which indicates that the Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, dismissed one Rene John Belec. A minute of a meeting of the Treasury Board states that the Board recommends the following:
Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras, who was compulsorily retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to promote efficiency on December 8, 1964, be paid, under the provisions of Section 10(3)-
That would indicate that the Treasury Board made the recommendation. Does that answer your point? I am reading from Government documents which were produced in this House as a result of questions I asked some months ago.
I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that the final week was not counted in respect of his pension. The 30 years service is used to calculate his pension in order to give him as big a pension as possible. They get around the Act in respect of the final week by retiring this man compulsorily to promote efficiency in the R.C.M.P. rather than for misconduct or inefficiency.
The hon. Member for Skeena in February drew attention to certain cases in respect of employees of the Indian Affairs Department. His questions were answered by the hon. Member for Fort William, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in this way:
Where a person is suspected of the misappropriation of public funds or Crown owned property, and this is confirmed by investigation, it is the policy of the department to recommend dismissal.
I should like to know why that cannot be the policy of all departments of government. That is a good policy and I am glad to know it is the one followed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Where a person is suspected of misappropriation of public funds or Crown owned property, and this is confirmed by investigation, it is the policy of the department to recommend dismissal, and that is a good policy.
The second sentence of this answer is:
After consultation between this department and the law officers of the crown, the Department of Justice decides whether the evidence warrants prosecution.
Why should these poor devils working for the Indian Affairs Branch receive the full
Interim Supply
treatment when it comes to dismissal from their employment for defalcation, yet some members of the R.C.M.P. are treated otherwise?
I stated before that I cannot make any comment on the Dorion report, and I will not, but I certainly can refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwood who said, when speaking yesterday:
I would say that politics is indeed in a sorry state when senior police officers accept as a matter of course that improper political interference may be made in the affairs of the administration of justice.
On Monday the hon. Member for Edmonton West related the pitiful cases of men by the names of Grant and Armishaw of the Indian Affairs division. Grant was charged that he overspent $70,000 of Indian Affairs money to aid the Indians of the Yukon Territory. I do not intend to repeat what the hon. Member for Edmonton West said, as he covered the subject thoroughly and adequately and asked for answers to his questions before the House recessed. He emphasized the fact that although over $70,000 was involved, this gentleman, Mr. Grant-I say "gentleman" and I mean "gentleman", and when I first meet him I will shake him by the hand because he is a gentleman-was fined $10 on each of six charges, with one day in jail as the alternative. I hope to God that the good people of Vernon, British Columbia, do not allow that gentleman to pay out that $60 fine. If they do not raise the $60, I should like to make a contribution to a fund so that Mr. Grant will not be put to that extra expense.
What happened to Mr. Grant? He has not been on the Government payroll for something like two years. Why do they not treat him in the same way as they treated the officers of the R.C.M.P.? If they did that, this poor fellow would not have to run a small grocery store in his advancing years, nor would his wife have to work as a nurse's aide in a nursing home in British Columbia. The interesting thing is that his co-conspirator, according to the charge read against him, was acquitted of all charges in the courts the day before yesterday, or at least that is the latest information I have read in the Edmonton newspapers.
I say to you, as a Member of the Liberal Party, that I will vote for this interim supply with a mighty heavy heart because I realize that some of the taxpayers' money is being diverted to pay pensions to the likes of former Inspector Ren6 John Belec, the first commis-

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
sioned officer in the 97-year history of the R.C.M.P. to ever be convicted of defalcation while holding down his office. We are paying him $6,600 just to show what a good guy he is. I will vote with a heavy heart for interim supply, part of which will also pay the pension of Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras.
While I will support the motion because Government must go on, I certainly would like to see less interference with the operations of the R.C.M.P. If R.C.M.P. officers were allowed to operate that division of the Government as they can operate it, and as they are able to operate it,-and they are the ones who built up its reputation over this 97 year period,-there would be higher morale in that arm of the Government than there is today, because of political interference from time to time. I am proud to stand here and say that I have the utmost confidence in Commissioner McClellan of the R.C.M.P., and I hope that there are other Members of Parliament who will say as much for the R.C.M.P. in spite of the attacks made on that force by two Members of this House yesterday afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is now apparent that before very long this House of Commons will be taking a recess. This is a rather unusual experience in the parliamentary lives of the newer Members. They probably do not know what a recess is, in view of the way in which we have been sitting more or less continuously since the 1963 election. I am sure that we all agree that a recess is desirable. It is desirable for the Members themselves in order that they can have a break from their duties here in Ottawa and meet with their constituents a little more than has been possible these past few years. It is also desirable for the Government, so that it will have an opportunity to give a little more attention to the legislation it intends to bring to Parliament.
Nevertheless I regret, Mr. Chairman, that we are leaving at this point so much unfinished business. I know that at this stage of the session any pleas I might make to the Government that certain things be done before we rise will probably fall on deaf ears, but I should like to state some of these important items, with the hope that they will be given consideration during the recess and that we will see action on them soon after we resume the business of the House in September.
The first item I should like to mention is the amount of the old age security pension. We had a good deal of discussion about this at the meetings of the Committee on the Canada

Pension Plan which met during the Christmas recess some months ago. Those who were Members of that Committee will recall that we tried to get motions passed to recommend that the old age security pension be increased to a $100 a month. We were not successful but there was expressed, particularly by Liberal members of the committee, the opinion that something needed to be done to improve the position of those now on pension and those who would not qualify for pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, and they also expressed the view that something would be done.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
One improvement was effected when the qualifying age for old age security was lowered from age 70 to age 65. However, this is coming down only on a year by year basis. The qualifying age will be 69 in 1966 and so on, until it becomes age 65 in 1970. This is a good move but, Mr. Chairman, it is no help to those who are now on the old age security pension. It is my very strong view that this Government and this Parliament will not get away with what they have failed to do in the old age pension field, and that action is going to have to be taken with regard to the amount of the old age security pension. I earnestly plead that the Government during the recess, if it does not find it possible to do it tonight, reconsider its position with regard to the amount of the old age security pension.
I have a resolution on the order paper, now fourth on the list of private Members' notices of motions, which seeks this very thing. It asks that the Government give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to increase the amount of the pension provided under the Old Age Security Act to $100 per month. I feel this is a matter of the utmost importance and I regret that, despite the wide support there is among Members of Parliament for doing something in this direction, we are going on recess without having increased the old age security pension from its present level of $75 a month. This is not good enough.
I move immediately, Mr. Chairman, to another subject which is related and indeed is a subject that the Government has related to the question about which I have just been talking. I refer to the Government's proposal to bring in what is to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan. This was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the start of the session, and it was outlined in some detail by the Prime Minister when he spoke
June 30, 1965



in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It was a piece of legislation that seemed to be an implementation of the statements made in the committee on the Canada Pension Plan to the effect that something would be done for people who would not qualify for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. I say at once, as I said at the time, that the ideas involved in the Canada Assistance Plan are good, but once again we are having to get these things on a Liberal timetable, which seems to take an ever longer and longer period of time.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has been making a good many speeches throughout the country in the last few months. She has been in the far east and she is now in the far west. In some of these speeches she has talked about the Canada Assistance Plan and has pointed out that under that Plan it will be possible for some persons who are on old age security and are drawing only $75 a month under that legislation to get an additional amount. The reason they will be able to get an additional amount is that the Canada Assistance Plan, so we understand, is to bring into legislation of this kind the concept of the needs test rather than the concept of the means test. This is good. Perhaps it may depend on how it is administered. You can administer the two concepts in such a way that despite the difference in name there may not be much difference in the result. However, I take the Government's proposals at their face value. I believe that the Government does intend that we should get away from means tests provisions in so far as our social legislation is concerned, and instead apply a needs test. But I suggest that it is unfair to our older people for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to go around talking about what is going to be done for them when we cannot get the legislation on the order paper. I know that someone on the other side may say to me that I am unreasonable in pressing this matter in view of the fact I have been told so often that it will come before the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference. The difficulty is that I have been listening to promises that matters will be discussed at Federal-Provincial Conferences during all the years I have had the privilege of being a Member of the House of Commons. I regret that after all the fanfare about the Canada Assistance Plan, which I think has the prospect of being a good piece of legislation, it is not yet on the order paper. I hope it will be on the order paper when the House re-22620-198
Interim Supply
sumes, which I understand is to be in September.
Another piece of unfinished business is medicare. Again we will be told that this is an item that is going to be discussed at the Federal-Provincial Conference. Well, it was the subject of discussions at the Federal-Provincial Conference of 1945 and was placed before the provincial governments then in the Green Book proposals. We have had it promised time and time again. In the meantime we have had other documents including the very excellent recommendations in the Hall report. In the meantime some of the provinces have brought down legislation in this field which may actually get in the way of the proper, adequate kind of medicare legislation that we need in the federal field. I regret that all we have had is talk about this matter and that there is nothing on the order paper as it now stands. I earnestly hope that when we come back for the remaining part of the session medicare will be on the order paper and that we will get action on this subject this year.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Fraser Valley raise again a few minutes ago the question of the position of retired federal civil servants. I congratulate those Members of all parties in the House who have raised this issue from time to time during the course of this session. I should like to suggest that it is not only the plight of those whose pensions are low because they may not have served very long about which we should be concerned, because I think that even those who served for many years and retired a few years ago are on pensions that have not kept pace with the rising cost of living or with the rising standard of living.
In 1959 Parliament recognized the validity of the principle that pensions of civil servants already retired should be increased, and this Parliament in the Canada Pension Plan has recognized the principle that after pensions are put in pay people on pension should get an increase, as costs go up and as standards go up, to enable them to meet rising costs and to enable them to enjoy the rising standard of living. The case of superannuated civil servants has been presented time and time again. The Government has heard representations from these people and has led them to believe that their representations would be considered, only to turn them down pretty flatly as has been the case in recent months.
This is an issue on which I think Parliament must act. It is not good enough just to

June 30, 1965
Interim Supply
say that these people have to wait for what is done by way of general legislation for all older people. The Government has a responsibility to all people of the country, as citizens, but it also has its particular responsibility to be a good employer. I do not think the Government is being a good employer when it keeps turning a deaf ear to the plight and the needs of our retired civil servants. I regret that nothing was done last session and that in this session that has lasted 53 sitting days so far we have got no action on this important question.
I couple with the plight of retired civil servants the plight of some retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. I am not referring to the two about whom the hon. Member for York-Humber spoke a moment ago, but rather to those who were retired on pensions provided under legislation, not pensions provided by Order in Council. It is also a fact that there are persons on defence service pensions who retired some years ago to whom some consideration should be given. With increasing costs and increasing standards, these people have a right to increases in their pensions which will enable them to meet these increasing costs and to enjoy our rising standards.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The same situation applies to the pensioners of the Canadian National Railways. It seems very difficult to get anything out of the present Minister of Transport, other than a promise to send a communication to the President of Canadian National Railways. All we ever get back from him is the same kind of communication, which suggests this is something for the Government to act upon only when it deals with all old people generally. As I say, I think this Government and the Canadian National Railways have a responsibility not only to citizens generally, they also have a special responsibility as employers. I regret very much that 53 days of this session of the twenty sixth Parliament have gone by without any action for these people.
Another item of unfinished business concerns something I have raised with the Minister of Labour on several occasions recently, namely the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Tomorrow is July 1, a significant day in the history of Canada. It will be the 98th anniversary of Confederation and also the day on which the Canada Labour Code comes into effect. This is a good piece of legislation. We waited a long while for it, but it is a good thing we have it. It is going to apply

certain standards to a good many employees. But the Code will not affect people who are working directly for the federal Government, nor will it affect people who are working on federal Government contracts. They can get the same standards that are set up in the Canada Labour Code only by other action. The Government has apparently acted by a Treasury Board minute to provide to direct Government employees one standard in the Canada Labour Code, namely the wage of $1.25 per hour.
However, the other three standards, the maximum work week, the eight general holidays with pay and the two weeks holiday with pay do not apply by law to direct employees of the Government, unless they have that protection under something like the Civil Service Act. So far as people working on Government contracts are concerned, they do not have this coverage at all. The Minister of Labour has promised repeatedly that this matter would be looked after. Last year when he introduced the Canada Labour Code he took the initiative himself in admitting the Canada Labour Code would not cover these two groups of employees. He said they would be covered by amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. He said that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would be amended so its provisions would parallel those of the Canada Labour Code, and would come into effect at the same time the Canada Labour Code came into effect.
We had discussion about this the other night in which the Minister quibbled about certain words he had used. He tried to say that his promise to have this come into effect by July 1, 1965, applied only to the minimum wage for direct Government employees. My reading of his answers to my questions over the months makes it very clear that it was his intention that these things would be in effect on the same date, namely July 1. I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that tomorrow, when the Canada Labour Code is going into effect, it will not be paralleled by amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, so that Government employees and persons working on Government contracts might have the same four minimum standards that are set out in the Canada Labour Code. I repeat those four minimum standards: a minimum wage; eight statutory holidays with pay; two weeks holiday with pay each year and a maximum work week of five days or 40 hours. As I say, Mr. Chairman, these things ought to be in effect and
June 30, 1965

it is not good enough for Parliament to be recessing, leaving behind so much unfinished business.
There are many other items not yet attended to, but at this moment I will list just one more, the one about which I asked the Minister of Labour a question on the orders of the day this afternoon, namely the proposed legislation regarding safety in employment. This, too, is something that the Government promised at the second session of Parliament. It was promised again by putting it in the Speech from the Throne at the start of this session. As a matter of fact, this is something that was before us even during the last Parliament under the previous Government but it never got passed. It is a serious situation which arises because of our division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government. There are plants in this country which come under federal labour jurisdiction. When accidents take place, even if someone is hurt or killed, the provincial safety people cannot go in to make an investigation because the plant comes under federal labour jurisdiction. I know of some cases where this has actually happened. As long as we have this division between provincial and federal jurisdiction in the labour field, we will need federal legislation in the safety field comparable to that which exists in the provinces.
As I say, the Minister of Labour promised us last session that this measure would be introduced. He made the same promise this session, and we have been told from time to time that the legislation was ready and would be brought before us soon. We were told that last fall. We went through that long session last year without ever seeing the measure on the order paper. We have been 53 days in this session and it still is not on the order paper. As hon. Members are aware, I asked the Minister of Labour about this on the orders of the day this afternoon and he said it would not be on the order paper before the session recessed. I then asked him if it would be on the order paper after we came back. I fear I did not word that supplementary question very well because it enabled him to say, yes, it would be on afterwards but afterwards might be two or three months or two or three years afterwards. We need this legislation on the order paper at the time we come back in September.
There are other matters, but I did want to list these seven or eight which I think
Interim Supply
are very important. I regret that we have gone 53 days without dealing with them. I hope when we come back in the fall this Government will realize the people of Canada expect action to increase the old age security pension to $100 per month and action to bring in the Canada Assistance Plan. They expect action on medicare. They expect something to be done for our superannuated civil servants, for retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, defence service personnel and retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. They expect action on the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. They expect action on the proposed legislation regarding safety in employment. 1 regret that there is so much unfinished business. If we give the Government two or two and a half months in which to attend to things, I hope it will use that time to get these various matters into legislative shape. I urge that they will be on the order paper without fail when we return in September.


Richard Russell Southam: I can assure hon. Members of the committee I am not going to take up very much of their time, Mr. Chairman, knowing that we are all anxious to wrap up this session. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not at this time rise in my place and register a very strong complaint about the emergency situation that is developing in western Canada. I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport are not in their seats. The emergency to which I am referring concerns the pile-up of grain on farms in Western Canada.
As hon. Members know, western Canada reaped a very bountiful harvest last year. With the quota system we have this has moved out gradually. For some unknown reason, during the past few weeks we have found box cars have not been available for this grain to move off western farms. The emergency is aggravated by the fact we have prospects of another large crop in the West this year, and we are very thankful for that. As I have said, we work on a quota system and at the end of the crop year, which is July 31, most of this grain should be moved off the farmers' hands and into the elevators in the process of being moved to market. The farmers would then have space in which to house the new crop. Members from western Canada have been bringing this problem to the attention of Ministers for the last six weeks. My hon. friend from Swift Current-

June 30, 1965
Ways and Means
Maple Creek has brought it to the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Rosthern and the hon. Member for Assiniboia have done the same thing. Only yesterday I referred to a telegram sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and questioned him about this matter. In reply he said the situation was under control. However, we do not see evidence of the necessary action being taken.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The Wheat Board is involved, but the Board, as an agency of the Government, has to get some direction and assistance from the Government. So I make an urgent plea to the Government at the present time to give this matter serious attention. I hope that some of the Ministers who are now present will bring it to the attention of their colleagues who are directly concerned because it is most important that the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. should rush cars into these areas.
There is one other matter. A number of farmers in western Canada have been receiving registered letters from the Wheat Board with respect to the balance of payments of their cash advances. Understandably this is a source of great annoyance to these farmers, who cannot pay the balances, due to the difficulty they find in getting their grain to market. They should not be receiving these dunning notes. There need be no concern about the collection of these advances because, under the Act, the permit books of the farmers concerned are held by the elevators and when they are allowed to bring their grain to market the advances will automatically be collected. I think the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board should discuss this matter with the Board to see whether the issuance of such letters cannot be held in abeyance until cars have been placed at the disposal of the elevators in western Canada to get the grain off the farms.
This is a serious problem in western Canada, particularly in southeastern Saskatchewan and the western side of Manitoba, and the Government should give it urgent consideration.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
['Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had to say. The hon. Member tells me he was referring to the manager of the Parliamentary Restaurant, whose services have been examined by the joint committee of this House and the other place. The hon. Member also informs me that the committee recommended that this gentleman be discharged. I do not know anything about the details of the matter, but it does seem odd to me that after a committee which is recognized and appointed by this House and the other place has made a certain recommendation, the Internal Economy Commission should go against that recommendation and give a very large increase in salary to this person. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are other persons employed around this building who are more deserving to receive this type of consideration than the person I have mentioned.']
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Resolved, that toward making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain ex-

penses of the public services for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1966, the sum of $1,651,292,282.42 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs just one question? Does he intend to reply to the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Greenwood with respect to the current proposal for the amending of the British North America Act?
Let me put my question this way: Is this all there is to it? Is the fact that there has been an opportunity to discuss the matter- whether there has been very much discussion or not-all that is necessary? The Government sends the amendment over and the constitution is amended-is it as simple as that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it is as simple as that. The Government, as the adviser to Her Majesty the Queen, has a responsibility which it will exercise as we have already indicated. This advice will be that the matter forwarded to us by the Lieutenant Governor, for the Government of the Province of Quebec is in respect of a matter which the Government of Canada believes to be a matter of a local character within the terms of the constitution.
I made a statement the other day as to the course we propose to follow. The Prime Minister had indicated that notwithstanding the responsibility of the executive, within the limitations I have indicated, the Government would not finally give this favourable advice to Her Majesty until such time as this House had been given the opportunity to express individual opinions. This opportunity has been given.
The Government takes the position that this is not a matter for the Parliament of Canada. This is a matter which does not concern the laws of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, or the provinces. This is a matter which affects the province concerned alone. For that reason the course I have already outlined will be followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no intention of extending this discussion, but I think it should be on record that some of us do not feel this is the proper course. If the Government proposes to go ahead and do it just because there has been this little bit of discussion, there is nothing we can do to stop it. But it does not accord with the views which some of us hold about the importance of our consti-
June 30, 1965

tution and the whole question of how it should be amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-131 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['I have no intention of extending this discussion, but I think it should be on record that some of us do not feel this is the proper course. If the Government proposes to go ahead and do it just because there has been this little bit of discussion, there is nothing we can do to stop it. But it does not accord with the views which some of us hold about the importance of our consti-\nJune 30, 1965', 'tution and the whole question of how it should be amended.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, -Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
On clause 1.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Are copies of this bill available?
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of Bill No. C-129, to provide incentives for the development of industrial employment opportunities in designated areas in Canada, and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister consider making a statement, in the light of some of the discussion we have had on this matter and in view of the understanding of the House Leaders?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the resolution yesterday I said that the area development program had achieved a substantial measure of success during its period of operation. Members may be interested in a few facts and figures covering the period
Grants to Designated Areas from the beginning of the program until the close of the last fiscal year.
It will be recalled that when the program was announced in September, 1963, a total of 35 National Employment Service areas were designated, within which tax incentives to new manufacturing and processing industries would apply. Three of these areas were removed from the list following a review of conditions in all areas in December, 1964. Economic conditions in these areas had improved to a degree where special development incentives were no longer required.
During the period mentioned, no fewer than 150 firms indicated to us that they intended to take advantage of the tax incentives and establish in designated areas. These new establishments will employ some 14,500 workers in their own plants and indirectly will create an equal number of additional jobs in the construction, supply and service industries. The total investment made in these new facilities will amount to more than $470 million, an average investment of about $32,500 for each worker employed in the new plants. The number of new jobs created in these new establishments represents almost 3 per cent of the labour force in the 35 designated areas.
I should explain that 27 of the original 35 areas attracted new industries under the program. An analysis of the new businesses established in the 27 areas indicates that six of these areas accounted for 72 per cent of all the new direct jobs and for 55 per cent of total new investment. Some 60 per cent of the the new firms are located in these six areas. The new jobs created amount to some 5.6 per cent of the labour force, and this has resulted in a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate in the areas.
These 150 new firms embrace a wide range of industries. The papermaking industry accounts for about one quarter of the new investment. Firms producing transportation equipment account for about 14 per cent of the new employment and the same proportion of new investment. The chemical industry accounts for about 13 per cent of the new employment, but for over one third of all the new investment, reflecting the very high ratio of capital to labour in this industry. The textile group also accounts for about 13 per cent of the new employment but only about 9 per cent of the new investment, reflecting the labour intensity of the textile industry. Machinery manufacturers account for about 7 per cent of the employment and about 2 per cent of the new investment. A few large
June 30, 1965

Grants to Designated Areas firms account for the major increases in new employment and investment. Of the 150 new firms, ten with investments of over $20 million account for over two thirds of the new investment and something less than one half of the new employment.
Drawing on the experience obtained in the first year of operation, the Government several months ago undertook a thorough review of the whole area development program. From the beginning our main concern was to deal quickly and effectively with situations of serious unemployment. In order to proceed we first needed to devise objective criteria which could be applied in a uniform and consistent manner to all areas across the country, in order to determine those areas in which unemployment conditions were most serious. Members will recall that designation was on the basis of National Employment Service areas and depended upon whether an area had been in a labour surplus category during the summer months of the previous eight years and where employment growth was well below the national average. Consideration was also given to short-run serious unemployment, and several areas were added for this reason.
Our early experience and study indicated that the unemployment situation in the summer months shows up markedly in certain areas where retooling and other production changes are normal in those months. Therefore we now propose to consider unemployment in terms of the ratio between the number of registered unemployed and the number of paid workers in the area for the year as a whole. When this ratio is calculated for each National Employment Service area, it provides a basis for comparing the unemployment situation among all areas in the country and of showing each area relative to the general situation for Canada as a whole. We believe that this is a better technique for identifying the areas where the incidence of chronic unemployment is heaviest.
The second criterion for designation is the rate of employment growth experienced over the most recent five years rather than over an eight-year period. Five years are enough, we believe, to establish a trend and identify a chronic situation, when this factor is calculated for each area, we have an additional basis for comparing areas with one another and with the average for the country as a whole.


Mr. Nugent:: The hon. Member only asked one question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The interjector's deskmate is very interested in these employment statistics, Mr. Speaker.
We are proposing a third criterion which provides for the designation of areas in which employment has declined persistently over a period of years. Our concern with unemployment and lack of employment opportunities goes well beyond a simple enumeration of people who might be registered as unemployed with the National Employment Service. To begin with it is well known that not all unemployed are registered with NES as seeking work. This situation may be associated with underemployment, which in general means employment for less than normal full time, or employment in an unproductive and low-paying job. But whatever the circumstances, perhaps the most reliable indicator of unregistered unemployment, and of underemployment, is low income. Accordingly, we are proposing to include as a fourth criterion for designation average non-farm family income as obtained from the national census. As the Canada Pension Plan gets under way we will benefit from more complete and more up-to-date information on family income in all parts of the country. What we will achieve through the application of these criteria is the designation of areas containing a total of about 15 per cent of the labour force in Canada. This is considered to be a reasonable and an acceptable scope for the new program and compares with 10 per cent of the Canadian labour force included in the 35 areas originally designated under the present program.
I have a final comment on this matter of determining which areas are to be designated for special assistance. Hon. Members are aware that industrial development assistance for select areas is relatively new to Canada and to other countries. We are in an early and experimental stage. The United States is in the process of enacting important changes in their program. In Europe, both Great Britain and France have made changes in recent years in their programs for area development.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
We must keep in mind that countries with unitary systems of government find it easier to implement regional programs than does Canada. In our system, the provinces have very definite interests in economic development, and these interests inevitably take on a regional character. In developing our program we have been most conscious of pro-
June 30, 1965

vincial interests, and have had both formal and informal consultations with regard to our new proposals. I think we have to recognize that as the provinces devise and implement development programs of their own, there will have to be close and continuing consultations to ensure that we move to our common objectives in a co-ordinated manner.
The Prime Minister said in his announcement of June 7 that final details with regard to criteria for designation of areas under this new program will have to await the completion of consultations with the provinces. I expect that these criteria, together with a description of the designated areas, will be announced immediately after the Prime Minister's conference with the Premiers to be held in July. Following this announcement and subsequent to the conference, I have assured a number of Members, and I am glad to assure the House, that the Government will table at the opening of the next part of the session the Order in Council designating the areas and will endeavour at an early date thereafter to refer the Order in Council to the House Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development for discussion.
Because of the critical importance of the considerations affecting the designation of areas to which this bill will apply, I have given this rather detailed statement concerning both matters of mechanics and principle which have been taken into account.
I now wish to deal more specifically with the incentives for encouraging industry to locate in the designated areas, which is the subject matter of the bill now under consideration. The Government's purpose in this legislation is to provide improved employment opportunities for people in areas where these are inadequate in comparison with Canada as a whole. It is our intention to have better employment opportunities and sound economic growth at the same time.
We are convinced of the importance to the country of a broadening and strengthening of our industrial sector and we wish to make it possible for some of this expansion to take place in the areas where industrial employment opportunities are needed most. To this end, the bill before you will provide for development grants to assist new manufacturing and processing industries to establish in designated areas. It will also provide grants to existing manufacturing and processing industries to assist them in expanding their facilities. We recognize that there are obstacles, and at times additional costs, to locating
Grants to Designated Areas in designated areas as compared with well-established industrial centres. It is the purpose of this bill to help overcome such obstacles and to provide an offset to higher initial costs. We propose that these grants should be based upon the fixed capital outlays incurred by the enterprise in establishing or expanding a business in designated areas, in accordance with formulas defined in the bill.
I should like to stress that it is not the Government's intention to encourage industries to establish in areas where their longterm prospects for success would be in doubt. While the Government will be providing financial assistance, the firms themselves will provide the bulk of the investment capital. Management will decide whether this initial capital assistance will offset the costs and other impediments to locating in designated areas as compared to alternatives. There is therefore a strong built-in safeguard to ensure that new enterprises in these areas will be viable on a long-term basis.
The development grant will amount to 33J per cent of the first quarter of a million dollars of fixed capital outlay. This proportion is higher than the allowance for larger investments, because it is the Government's view that the smaller firm is often well adapted to conditions in designated areas. Furthermore, the smaller firm is often more labour-intensive. We are also aware that smaller firms usually have difficulties in their initial financing, so that a cash grant is the more effective way of meeting their needs.
On capital costs between $250,000 and $1 million, the development grant will amount to 25 per cent of the fixed investment and on outlays over $1 million the proportion will be 20 per cent, with a maximum of $5 million for any single facility. For expansion of an existing facility, the amount of the grant will be determined by the same formula, except that the expansion must be larger than a specified minimum in order to qualify. Again the $5 million maximum grant for any single facility will apply.
Some firms may, for one reason or another, prefer to have a remission of tax rather than a cash grant. These tax incentives have proven highly attractive to many firms in the present program, and they will be retained as an option under the new program until the relevant provisions in the Income Tax Act expire on March 31, 1967. Furthermore, firms which qualify for assistance under the new program may elect to take a tax credit in lieu of a cash grant.
June 30, 1965

Grants to Designated Areas
In addition to providing funds and establishing formulae for making development grants, the bill before you proposes amendments to the Income Tax Act relating to definitions of "manufacturing" and "processing". The main effect of these amendments is to ensure that the basis of eligibility for the tax benefits which will remain in effect until March 31, 1967, will be the same as the basis on which eligibility of assets for development grants will be determined.
Hon. Members should note that the bill establishes an expiry date of March 31, 1971, for grants under this program.
As I said earlier, we are in a new and dynamic field when we undertake to influence industrial location in particular areas. We will no doubt learn a great deal as our program proceeds, as indeed other countries have done in the past. As we gain new experience, and learn from the experience of others, it would be my hope and intention, Mr. Speaker, to come before the House again with further proposals, which would be designed like the present ones, to make more effective the Government's efforts to ensure the growth of our industrial sector and the better employment opportunities that this expansion will provide to our people in all parts of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a question of the Minister before he sits down. He said that he would endeavour to have these regulations tabled in the House soon after the House resumed its sittings, and that he would endeavour to have them referred to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development. He said he would "endeavour". I was wondering whether that was a slip of the tongue. Do I take it that the Minister is undertaking to have them referred to this Committee?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did undertake unequivocally to table the estimates because this is within my control. I have learned in a very short parliamentary experience not to give undertakings as to what the House may or may not do. I will use my best endeavours to see that these are referred as early as possible after tabling-and I do undertake to table them immediately-to the House Committee. Specifically, I think it has been understood, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this question of tabling and referral, that the Government undertakes that the Order in Council designating the designated areas in clause 2(c) will be tabled on the resumption after the summer recess and referred to the Standing Com-
mittee on Industry, Research and Energy Development. This will include an opportunity to discuss the criteria.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very much time but I am interested in the fact that overnight the Minister has learned a considerable amount about this matter, and I congratulate his officials in the gallery for having written this very interesting statement that the Minister has just read. I hope that during the summer recess he will take some opportunity to learn something about the department, so that he will keep familiar with the many points which were raised by hon. Members yesterday. Some of the staff of the department, perhaps not known to the Minister, have already learned some lessons, and this resulted in the discussion which took place on the changing of the criteria for deciding the designated areas. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one sentence of the Prime Minister's statement made on June 7 and recorded at page 2023 of Hansard for that date. The Prime Minister said:
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The third major change we propose in the policy is an extensive revision and broadening of the areas to which it applies. With this objective we propose to establish new guide lines for the designation of areas where, under the terms of the Department of Industry Act, the industrial incentives will be made available. These guide lines will be the basis for objective standards which will be put in statistical terms by the Governor General in Council.
Then he goes on to say:
The importance of the present proposals is that Canadians living in areas where jobs are most needed will have a better chance to improve their lives, because of the scope that this program provides for constructive industrial development and improved skills.
Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time of the House to go over some of the changes which have been discussed by Members in all parts of the House, but I should like to say that the Prime Minister clearly indicated in his statement that he was prepared to move this program along the road of progress. This program really has been in effect for a number of years and has been modified more than once. A change is already needed again as indicated by the fact that out of 35 areas originally designated, 27 have new industry while four have been removed from designation, yet the areas which have been assisted have faced a very heavy increased capital cost because of the additional number of
June 30. 1965

people employed. The figures in this regard as I wrote them down are 14,002 employees at a capital expenditure of $32,000 for each employee with an increase in earnings as a result of the assistance of 3 per cent.
The Minister I think really read an interpretation of the Act now before us giving some elaboration in respect of the section which relates to the Department of Industry Act. This in very broad terms sets forth the criteria to be established, not by that Act or any other Act, but by Order in Council. For that reason I suggest to the Minister that Members of Parliament who make suggestions in this regard, and I do not think the Minister has grasped this fact, are not going to suggest that industry be developed in areas or communities which will be harmed by such development. One might by subsidy entice industry to develop in communities, but if these industries are not capable of supporting themselves after the subsidy is cut off, then this measure will in fact bankrupt these communities. If the members of the communities, their industrial commissions and municipal councils cannot envisage an industry carrying its own weight after the initial incentive disappears, I am sure no responsible representative will ask that these industries be persuaded to locate in their areas.
No doubt there are many people who would be glad to lend money for the establishment of industry in certain areas because under this proposal they would receive a large proportion of their investment back in the form of subsidies. For instance, if a small factory is involved, the return could be as high as 33 per cent of the capital expenditure for such things as machinery and initial construction. I sincerely hope that the Minister will have a change of heart and will urge the committee to do something to make this plan much more successful than it has been.
In my opinion there has been a tremendous lack of leadership on the part of provincial departments of economics, or whatever the name is of those departments which are the counterpart of the federal Department of Industry. That leadership has not been forthcoming. In the Province of Ontario, while there are some very good people working in the Department of Economics who have been responsible for some of the success that has been achieved, the Government and the Minister in particular have not shown the needed leadership. A former Minister who did a great deal to develop this Department failed after
Grants to Designated Areas its development to give leadership in the area of the development field.
I do not believe our Minister is going to come back with a cut and dried program which will provide equity of treatment to all participating provinces, because some of the provinces are not in the same position as others. I sincerely urge the Minister to keep in mind the promise made by the Government to the House that these criteria and regulations will be considered in respect of any Orders in Council, and reconsidered by the Industrial Committee. It is my belief that many valuable and worthy suggestions will be made by Members of that Committee which the Government will have to act upon, or fail in its commitment. I hope the Minister will be sincere in his consultations with the Members of that Committee and will look seriously at the problems that will be raised regarding areas where assistance has not been provided.
I am perfectly in accord with the Prime Minister's statement. He may not have read this bill thoroughly, but as a result of reading it I am convinced that there is no great change in the criteria for designating areas. All there has been is a change in the system of incentives by the inclusion of outright grants. I do not believe the Prime Minister was talking about money, but rather about the inclusion of areas where there has been slow growth in the expansion of industrial development. What is needed is some leadership on the part of the Government for the development of equity of opportunity to communities throughout Canada.
I am as positive as I am standing here, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not meet the requirements as suggested by the Prime Minister. The Minister is sometimes reluctant to pay much attention to the suggestions of Parliamentarians, perhaps even most of the time, but I hope in regard to this whole program he will give some consideration to the suggestions which I am sure will be made by the Committee. I have sympathy for the fact that the Minister has had a great deal of administrative responsibility, but I think before we will be able to arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion the co-operation of each and every Member of this House will be absolutely essential, as will be the co-operation of each of the provisional departments interested in this scheme.
The Minister has said that this is a new kind of program. I agree that it has been changed three or four times and I hope that
3128	COMMONS
Grants to Designated Areas on the occasion of every future change, the change will be for the better. I think we will be taking a great step along the road to cooperation in helping these areas of slow industrial growth if each and every Member consults with his local industrial commission and municipal council in order that at this level of Government there will be greater understanding in this field. If that is the case,
I am sure that when we come back to discuss the criteria and regulations in the Committee we will truly be able to do what the Prime Minister has said is needed.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
He has said that the importance of the present proposals lies in the fact that Canadians living in areas where jobs are most needed will have a better chance to improve their lives because of the scope of this program providing for constructive industrial development and improved skills. I hope we can make this come to pass and bring about a redistribution of industry that will provide an equal opportunity to areas in all parts of this country.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say about section 1 of the bill on designated areas. I would call the Minister's special attention to the condition governing grants for the development of industry in designated areas, because we know from past experience in my county that, in recent years, certain areas have not been designated. What I find strange is that our area was designated for winter works, we have received winter works grants as a designated area, yet when it comes to setting up new industries or allowing grants for new industries, we find that our area is no longer designated. It is on this specific point that I wish to draw the Minister's special attention, because he told us that these new areas would be designated at the time of the federal-provincial conference of provincial prime ministers. Therefore, I want to inform him of one thing: there are, in constituencies such as mine, factors which will completely change the report of the national unemployment service.
From what I see, statistics provided by the national unemployment service constitute the main basis for the designation of areas. In my constituency, there are two offices of the national unemployment service. The statistical data of the office in the north are very exact, and this area is desig-

DEBATES	June 30, 1965
nated both for winter works and for assistance to industries. On the other hand, in the south, the designated area, Roberval and St. Felicien, the unemployment office, which is located in Roberval, cannot give a true picture of the region for the good reason that the big towns of Chibougamau and Chapais are not part of the economy of the area, but come under the national unemployment office in Roberval. This results in a very large labour surplus registering at the Roberval office. The statistics of the Roberval office show that this region seems more prosperous than it really is, because Chibougamau and Chapais are industrial centres where unemployment is extremely low. If the minister will only take my remarks into consideration, I suggest that these two towns be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Roberval office and that another unemployment office be set up for the towns of Chapais and Chibougamau, with a view to finding out exactly what the labour and unemployment situation is in each region.
I am told that, as a result of redistribution, the towns of Chapais and Chibougamau will be incorporated in the Roberval constituency. If so, three unemployment offices should be set up, at all costs, in order to have three separate regions and to do justice to each one of them, because when the statistics of the Roberval office are sent to Ottawa, they include the towns of Chapais and Chibougamau. Then you are under the impression that those towns are located two or three miles from the Roberval office, but the fact is that they are 155 miles away from the Roberval office and are separated by more than 135 miles of virgin forest. That is why I maintain it is impossible logically to include those two urban centres in the Roberval and St. Felicien district. The minister is aware of that situation, because in recent years we have been in touch with him in order to get grants for the winter work performed in those two towns. We are proud of having them in our constituency, but we are not so proud to see people in our area deprived of grants that would normally be paid to them.
A few industries will most likely settle in St. Felicien; a pulp and paper mill, for instance, could have taken advantage of those grants, but the problem was there. I met the municipal authorities of St. Felicien who explained the problem to me. "We cannot get the grants because this is not a designated area", they said. I am sure this can be dis-
June 30, 196i	COMMONS
cussed at the federal-provincial conference and that the Quebec Minister of Industry could be approached in this regard, because we are sometimes overlooked even by the Quebec government; as a matter of fact, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture did forget, for a whole year, to mention to the federal Minister of Agriculture that we were in economic difficulties and that we needed assistance.
I am convinced that the minister will take my remarks into serious consideration, because this matter has to be settled once and for all, and the southern part of Roberval county, from St. Felicien, Chambord and Roberval, should be considered as a separate region and the two communities of Chapais and Chibougamau should have their own national unemployment office, in order to better judge the situation in those communities.
I will not elaborate, because I am quite satisfied with the grants offered designated areas; however, I hope that justice will be done. If justice is done, I am sure those two regions will be among the first to become designated areas, since they need assistance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I do want to say I am one who appreciates the Minister's willingness to co-operate in accepting the suggestion so forcefully presented by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and agreeing to recommend that the Order in Council covering this legislation be referred to the appropriate committee when we return after the holidays. I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Timiskaming, who I admit could be considered by the Minister as a rather prickly political pear in opposition, for his persistence and determination to stand up for what he believes is the right course of action. I think the hon. Member's persistence in standing up for the things in which he believes and the Minister's willingness to cooperate have brought us to this rather, shall I say-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Felicitous.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -mellow mood in respect of this legislation.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Now, I do want to say that in my opinion this is experimental legislation. This type of legislation is only recent in history. I believe Members of the House will be entitled to periodic reports on the operation of the Act,
DEBATES	3129
Grants to Designated Areas more than just an annual report. If this measure is to be a success, it must have the co-operation of the Members of the House. I suggest also that Members will have an opportunity, as a result of these periodic reports on the administration and operation of the Act, to make suggestions with respect to improvements that are required, or amendments based on their personal knowledge of their local circumstances and their experience in seeing the Act in operation.


David Réal Caouette: Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to delay the proceedings of the house, especially as everybody is in a hurry to reach the 1st of July. I know that the Minister of Industry and Minister Defence Production (Mr. Drury) is anxious to reach the 1st of July as much as we are.
We are now considering Bill No. C-129 to provide incentives for the development of industrial employment opportunities in designated areas in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, I will deal briefly with the proposal effecting certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.
However, as a representative of a riding forming part of or included in a so-called designated area, more especially Rouyn-Nor-anda, Malartic, Val d'Or, etc., I wish to point out to the minister that, in our part of the country, for instance, it is unthinkable to set up industries other than the forest or mining industries. That is practically all the development opportunities we have.
Now, our area has dozens of mining prospects, in short a tremendous mining potential, and the government has never taken the trouble to look into the possibility of fully developing this mining area. As a matter of fact, there is no question of setting up a factory of automotive parts, for the good reason that transportation costs are prohibitive. We cannot hope to establish any other industry, or almost, because production costs are also prohibitive. The transportation costs are prohibitive because we are far from large centres.
However, our mining potential is almost unlimited and it is liable to be developed.
We are in favour of tax cuts, but we want the government to take positive steps to encourage new industries or companies to settle there and work the extensive ore bodies in northwestern Quebec. But the government will not listen.
June 30, 1965

Grants to Designated Areas
Mr. Speaker, as pointed out a little earlier by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who represents the riding next to mine where almost the same problems exist,
I feel that the only way to help northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario it to promote the settlement of new mining companies. However, when we make this suggestion, it falls on deaf ears, people do not want to hear, people do not believe that there are, in those areas, almost unrestricted opportunities for mining development.
Mr. Speaker, it must be realized that there are other things besides gold in that part of the country. In fact, copper, zinc, nickel, ores of all kinds can be found there, provided we want to assist in the development of our mining industry. I am convinced that if the government spent one thousandth of its energy to promote the establishment of new mining industries in our area, it would not have to introduce bills and measures like the one we are now considering, and the Minister of Industry and Defence Production would be perfectly free to say: We have promoted the establishment of those industries which, in turn, have created employment, economic stability, in short we have given confidence to the Canadian pepole who live in that area.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot hope for any industry other than the mining and forestry industries, and even then, the mining industry is well ahead of the other in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I want to call the minister's attention to the provisions of Bill No. C-129 and ask him to consider carefully the existing conditions and situation at this time in northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario. I am sure he would then offer himself the luxury of a trip from Montreal to Rouyn, to Kirkland Lake or to Timmins, in order to find out exactly what is happening in those areas.
The city of Montreal does not experience problems of this kind, because there are no mines in Montreal. There may be a ministers' mine, but there is no gold mine of any kind.
I sincerely believe that, when the time comes to examine Bill No. C-129, as well as the proposed amendments, the minister should consider what could be done as regards the areas which are already designated areas, underdeveloped areas, whereas we have, as I said a while ago, almost unlimited possibilities as regards development, but nobody dares to think about them, because the exact situation is not known.

Those possibilities are ours and all the minister has to do is to take the required decisions, not decisions that would cost something to the government, but decisions which will eventually be profitable to Canada as a whole and more particularly to the citizens now living in the designated areas of northwestern Quebec or northeastern Ontario.
I say and I repeat that the minister will then have taken into account and respected the feelings and aspirations of the people living in regions which are recognized as designated areas.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, -Mr. Richard in the Chair.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to say a word on clause 12. I think this is the clause under which most of the trouble arises. I think hon. Members generally are strongly in favour of the purpose and intent of the legislation. The thing which has worried everyone is the question of the regulations under which areas are declared to be designated areas, and the other regulations which will flow from this clause.
I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister. This is not a simple problem. The task of trying to forge an economic technique for coping with regional unemployment takes a great deal of sophistication and experience. I have had an opportunity to look at the programs carried out by a number of countries, Sweden, West Germany, and Britain in particular. They vary from country to country. West Germany which is a federation, uses a totally different technique from Sweden which has a complex and sophisticated series of enactments. Great Britain, where legislation of this kind is more recent, has not yet reached the stage of advancement which has been reached by Sweden.
We have to be patient and feel our way. I think there is no doubt that the criteria we used last year were not adequate. They produced a great many anomalies and some glaring inequities. I think the formula the Minister is presenting now constitutes an improvement. I believe there will have to be further improvements. The Minister, in one of the formulae, said he will take into consideration non-farm income. I think the time is coming when in some regions we shall have to take farm income into consideration.
[Mr. Caouette.l
June 30, 1965
COMMONS DEBATES	3131
I was in Norfolk county some months ago. I sent the Minister a brief which had been prepared by the County Council with the help of some sociologists from the university. It showed that 25.2 per cent of the farmers there had a cash income amounting to less than $1,000 in 1964. This means that those farmers had to depend upon some type of part-time employment. Some types of industry might well produce employment of this kind. If it is necessary to move these people from uneconomic farms to industry, there will be a need to attract industry to areas such as Norfolk County, though applications from Norfolk County to be designated have been consistently refused. I use this example as an illustration. This legislation will become more complex and sophisticated as we go along. I do not blame the Minister. He is breaking new ground. We must get the benefit of the experience of as many people as we can, in the municipal field, in industry and in this House.
I am glad the Minister has agreed to table the regulations in the House when we reassemble and refer them to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development. If this measure were reviewed periodically by that committee a great many useful suggestions could be worked out. I have a number in mind myself, as I am sure have Members in all parts of the House. This is not the time to belabour the Minister with them; an opportunity will be presented for doing this after we have re-assembled. We congratulate the Minister on his willingness to have this matter discussed in the committee. We feel certain that the committee and Members of the House generally can be useful to him in reviewing these regulations from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Internal Economy Commission Report HOUSE OF COMMONS


CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OF INTERN AX, ECONOMY COMMISSION
George James McIlraith: ;
That the report of the Commissioners of Internal Economy relating to classification changes affecting a number of the personnel in the House of Commons laid before the House on June 14, 1965, and printed in Votes and Proceedings of that day be now concurred in.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, there is only one comment I have to make about the report, now that I have had an opportunity of reading it. I find in the report that one Member of the staff of this House receives a very large increase in salary. I think this matter should be reconsidered, in light of the fact that his services, in the opinion of the Committee, were no longer required and a recommendation to that effect was made almost a year ago. I believe this is really an abuse of the committee of the House, namely to give a large salary increase to this particular individual, in light of the fact that not only the recent committee but several previous committees censured, without success, this man.
It seems to me that it takes away all the effectiveness and value of the committee if one of the largest increases given to any employee of this House goes to an individual with regard to whom a joint committee of this House and the other place recommended discharge some months ago. I suggest that the committee look at this particular matter, because it seems to me to be completely contrary to the efficient operation of the House.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I sought to catch your eye merely in an attempt to get in before the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to ask for an assurance from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) that the increases will ensure that all these employees will receive at least the $1.25 an hour minimum wage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Starting tomorrow.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, starting tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that all of them get more than $1.25 an hour now. In any event, a check is being made to make sure that there is no case where an employee is getting less than the amount required by the provisions of the

June 30. 1965
Business of the House
Canada Labour Standards Code. I believe that there are no persons receiving less than that amount now, but it is being checked.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to be sure that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre would be able to enjoy a happy July 1 celebration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci beaucoup.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had to say. The hon. Member tells me he was referring to the manager of the Parliamentary Restaurant, whose services have been examined by the joint committee of this House and the other place. The hon. Member also informs me that the committee recommended that this gentleman be discharged. I do not know anything about the details of the matter, but it does seem odd to me that after a committee which is recognized and appointed by this House and the other place has made a certain recommendation, the Internal Economy Commission should go against that recommendation and give a very large increase in salary to this person. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are other persons employed around this building who are more deserving to receive this type of consideration than the person I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: That when this House adjourns this day, it stands adjourned until Monday, September 27, 1965, at 2.30 o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I willingly give my consent to the presentation made by the President of the
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
Privy Council. However, I would like to know, before we adjourn, if the President of the Privy Council and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as all the members of the cabinet, will have enough time during those three months to study the proposals of the Social Credit party which aim at giving Canada a sound administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monteith:: Debt free money. The Minister of Finance will go for it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure my hon. friend that we do not need any time for that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, may I crave the indulgence of the House. This morning there was referred to the House from the Senate, Bill No. S-18, an Act to incorporate Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Canada. If I have the unanimous consent of the House I would move that we revert to private Members' business, and if I could also obtain unanimous consent I would move that the petition for an Act to incorporate Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is obviously not unanimous consent in respect of the motion proposed by the hon. Member.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to receive unanimous consent, because otherwise this bill will be delayed for three months and it is a very important matter. I am sorry that unanimous consent has not been given.


Mr. Gregoire:: We will see you in three months time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we suspend the sitting of the House to the call of the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will that be by a ringing of the bells?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, hon. Members will be called by the ringing of the bells.
At 8.20 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
June 30. 1965



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 10.03 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 30, 1965.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, June 30, at ten o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant.
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A Message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.
An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
An Act to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
An Act to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
An Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act.
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
An Act respecting the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from a point at or near mileage 3.2 of the Froomfield Spur of the Canadian National Railway near Sarnia in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 12 miles to the property of Canadian Industries Limited in Sombra Township in the County of Lambton.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Royal Assent
An Act respecting Great Northern Railway Company and Great Northern Pacific & Burlington Lines, Inc.
An Act to incorporate Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
An Act to provide incentives for the development of industrial employment opportunities in designated areas in Canada, and to effect certain related
amendments to the Income Tax Act.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of this moment, before moving that the House adjourn, for the purpose of doing something that is particularly delightful for me, that is, to wish all hon. Members of the House a very pleasant summer recess which has been well earned and is, if I may be permitted the licence, much needed. I should like each Member of the House, no matter where he may sit, to return to the pleasant surroundings of his home and his constituency and, in spite of whatever the work ahead of him may be, to have in the meantime a well earned holiday and recess so that he may refresh himself. I hope that Members of the Opposition will do so in a way that will not give them too much energy upon their return to this place, but will at least make them feel very pleased about their return. In the case of Members on this side of the House I hope, of course, that they will be refreshed in a way that will give them much energy for the fray that may lie ahead after the 27th of September.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to thank the President of the Privy Council and House Leader for his good wishes. We on this side of the House wish him and all his colleagues in the Government a good rest. I hope they will not be called to Cabinet meetings too soon, and that they will all be given an opportunity to get the cobwebs out of their heads, because the presence of cobwebs has been noticeable in the last few weeks. We promise that when we come back we will endeavour to guide the Government along a path different from that which they have been following in the past few years, a path which will bring prosperity to this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we too should like to thank the Government House Leader for his good wishes. We too would like to reciprocate by extending our best wishes to Your Honour and to all Members of the House and to the staff, whom we have perhaps overworked during the past year or two. We welcome

June 30, 1965
Royal Assent
the suggestion that we might find refreshment during the weeks of recess that lie ahead. We will come back ready for the fray and we hope the Government will give us, on the 27th of September, an order paper that is full of things that will be good for this country.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, this is an occasion on which we all share the same sentiments. It is not too often that this happens, but this is one of the occasions. We appreciate the kind expression of good wishes from the House Leader and we express to the House Leader and the Members of the Government as well as other Members of this House our sincere wishes for an enjoyable, refreshing holiday. Looking back, I think we can say we have accomplished many things in the past few weeks, and of course will be looking forward to resuming business in the fall.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice and that of my group, which is not very large this evening to that of other members who spoke before me, to wish everyone, and especially to you, Mr. Speaker, a happy and restful recess, because you had a thankless and difficult task in maintaining order between the various groups of the house.
Mr. Speaker, you fulfilled your job so admirably that I think we should not refer to political matters or partisanship, but that we must altogether admire the faultless and admirable way in which you presided over the business of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening a moment ago while the President of the Privy Council wished us a happy recess, and I thank him. Indeed, we will have a happy recess, and I know that several members will attend conventions or travel to other countries during the holidays. We will re-assemble on September 27, 1965, that is in three months.
Now, as I said this afternoon, I make the wish that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) and the various ministers- particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon)-will take time out during those
three months to study the proposals of the Social Credit party, in order to give Canada, when the session resumes, an administration that is sound, logical and financially-


Mr. Bechard:: Achievable.


David Réal Caouette: -achievable.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to render one more little service to the House, to assist hon. Members in soothing their weary frames and weary voices. If they are so inclined, it would be an honour to receive them in the Speaker's Chambers immediately following the adjournment.


George James McIlraith: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m. until Monday, September 27, at 2.30 pun.
[The following items were passed this day in Committee of Supply:]



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Loans, Investments and Advances-
L27c. Loans, in the current and subsequent fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist manufacturers of automotive products in Canada affected by the Canada-United States Agreement on Automotive Products to adjust and expand their production, such loans to be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion or expansion of land, buildings, equipment, facilities or machinery and for working capital; and to authorize, notwithstanding Section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $20,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $10,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
5c. To extend the purposes of Labour Vote 5 Main Estimates, 1965-66 to include authority for payments of transitional assistance, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries who become unemployed as a result of the operation of the Canada-United States Agreement on Automotive Products, $5,000,000.