1965-03-22

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1966, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house, in view of the important nature of these estimates and because I understand there are a number of matters to be raised before we reach motions, I should like to make a short statement to the house. I suggest that this might be done on the understanding that opposition spokesmen be also free to make their usual statements at this time.
The budgetary expenditures provided for in the estimates for the coming fiscal year commencing April 1, 1965, including amounts already authorized by continuing statutes as well as moneys parliament is being requested to appropriate, amount to $7,399,727,432. Parliament is also being asked to authorize the disbursement of moneys for loans, investments and advances, which add to the government's active assets, in a total amount of $202,144,800.
Not included in these totals, but set out in the estimates for information, is the forecast amount for old age security pension payments amounting to $905 million. These pension payments are separated from the budget figures and are payable out of the old age security fund to which are credited the taxes levied for this particular purpose. The figure shown in the blue book does not include the increased payments contemplated by the Canada pension plan legislation.
To compare the main estimates for 196566 with the total expenditures authorized by parliament to date for the current fiscal year would, of course, be misleading. The new year's estimates take no account of the supplementary requirements which parliament will be asked to approve in the course of the year. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that a reasonably accurate comparison of total expenditures for the year commencing April 1, 1965 with those for the current and previous fiscal years must await the budget presentation.
It is also misleading to compare the main
estimates for the coming fiscal year with the main estimates for the current year. For example, the subsidies and special compensation payments to the provinces which are statutory are shown in 1965-66 at some $127 million more than the amount included in the main estimates for 1964-65. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the increase in these payments in 1965-66 over the expected actual expenditures in 1964-65 is only $38 million because of increases during the current year consequent upon new federal-provincial arrangements entered into following the preparation of last year's blue book.
There is also the fact that the programs envisaged by the Atlantic Development Board Act are shown for the first time in the 196566 blue book, whereas expenditures are being incurred during 1964-65 by virtue of the appropriation granted by that act.
On the other hand, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce register a decrease of about $19 million from 1964-65. The bulk of that amount represents the balance of the federal payment to the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition which, when paid during the current year, will not be repeated in the new year.
Changes in statutory expenditures between years result in an over-all increase of $343.6 million. Beyond the $127 million increase shown for subsidies and special compensation to the provinces-and I would repeat that the actual increase is $38 million-and the new $25 million item for the Atlantic development board program, both mentioned earlier, the principal increases are: $64 million in payments to provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act; $63.2 million in interest and other charges related to the public debt; $55 million in forgiveness of indebtedness by the municipal development and loan board, and

Main Estimates
$46.5 million for youth allowances payments, a new item.
An increase of about 1.5 per cent will be noted in the provision for the Department of National Defence, reflecting increasing costs generally and initial provision for the five year defence equipment program announced recently, offset somewhat by the savings being achieved by departmental reorganization. For 1965-66, funding for the armed forces is being combined in one vote to facilitate the adjustments necessary for integration of the forces, but the same degree of information is provided in the details of estimates as for other years.
When I tabled the main estimates a year ago I indicated that a special program review had been instituted during the summer months of 1963 as a prelude to the customary treasury board review of departmental proposals in the fall of the year, and that substantial cut-backs in many expenditure programs were achieved as a result of that examination. That procedure was refined and extended last summer. Its effectiveness and usefulness was such that it is intended to make it a permanent feature of the government's annual budgetary procedures.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to changes in the form of the estimates for 1965-66. The unemployment insurance commission has hitherto had its estimates listed in the blue book with those of the Department of Labour. In the 1965-66 blue book the unemployment insurance commission's estimates are shown in a separate section located, alphabetically, immediately after the estimates of the Department of Transport and immediately before the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Other services have been transferred to new locations in the blue book as a result of transfers under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. They
are: the Atlantic development board transferred from Secretary of State to the Minister of Transport; the centennial commission and the economic council of Canada both transferred from Privy Council to the Secretary of State, and the national museum of Canada, which has been transferred from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the Secretary of State.
Another change, one which puts into effect a proposal which was made to the government by the standing committee on public accounts, is the inclusion of a new appendix to the blue book, commencing on page 525, entitled "Public Service Employment". This appendix comprises an over-all summary of establishment and staff strength statistics for all the federal departments and agencies for which financial provision is contained in the earlier sections of the blue book.
With the permission of the house I now propose to table for inclusion in Hansard three tables relating to the 1965-66 estimates. The first table compares the 1965-66 estimates with the total budgetary estimates for several preceding years. The second table compares statutory expenditures for 1965-66 with those for
1964-	65. The third table indicates the changes in the main estimates between 1964-65 and
1965-	66 by an examination of operating, capital and other costs.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize again that the main estimates which I have tabled in the house today do not provide any reasonable comparison of total expenditures for next year with those of the current or previous fiscal years. That comparison must await the budget presentation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that these tables be included and printed in Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note:	The tables referred to
above are as follows:]

MARCH 22, 1965	1260S
Main Estimates



TABLE I

[Stage Direction]
TOTAL BUDGETARY ESTIMATES (in millions of dollars)
		Final	
Main	Supplementary	supplementary	estimates	estimates	estimates	Total1965-66	
7,399.7	1964-65	
6,702.9	221.8	245.6	7,170.31963-64	
6,307.2	311.9	240.9	6,860.01962-63	
6,048.21	181.0	281.92	6.466.031961-62	
6,123.8	355.9	122.8	6,602.51960-61	
5,732.2	169.9	178.2	6,080.31959-60	
5,595.9	86.1	116.8	5,798.81958-59	
5,178.8	144.8	282.8	5,606.41957-58	
4,827.6	145.3	187.6	5.088.841956-57	
4,526.1	153.5	89.8	4,769.4
1Revised estimates; original main estimates were greater by $228.0 million.
2	This is the amount appropriated by governor general's warrants and included in the report on supply for 1962-63 which would have been tabled as final supplementary estimates for 1962-63 had parliament been sitting.
3	This total is the amount appropriated for 1962-63 and is $45.0 million less than the sum of the tabled estimates and the final supplementary estimates for 1962-63.
4	This total is the amount appropriated for 1957-58. It is $71.7 million less than the amount of the tabled estimates due to year end financing by governor general's warrants.

[Stage Direction]
BUDGETARY ESTIMATES OF STATUTORY EXPENDITURES FOR 1965-66 AS COMPARED WITH THOSE FOR 1964-65 (in millions of dollars)
Submitted	Approved
1965-66	1964-65	Change
Civil departments-
Public debt charges	
Subsidies and special compensation to provinces	
Family allowances payments	
Youth allowances payments	
Payments to provinces under Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic
Services Act	
Old age assistance	
Allowances for the blind and disabled	
Major pensions, superannuation and other benefits	
Contribution to unemployment insurance fund	
Unemployment assistance	
Trans-Canada highway contributions	
Subsidy to C.N.R. for railway to Great Slave lake	
Payment of (1) carrying costs of storing temporary wheat reserves
(2) administering the prairie grain advance payments program.
University grants	
Atlantic development fund	
Payment to the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition..
Emergency gold mining assistance	
Subventions on movements of coal	
East west railway bridge subsidy	
Railway grade crossing fund (statutory portion only)	
Forgiveness of indebtedness-municipal development and loan board.
Payments under Fitness and Amateur Sport Act	
Sundry items	
Defence departments-
Major pensions, superannuation and other benefits	
1,101.1
358.2
553.0
46.5
484.0
45.7
29.3
73.7
62.5
115.0
50.0
16.0
31.8 27.7
25.0
14.3
14.9
7.0
5.0
60.0
5.0 26.0
67.4
3,219.1
1,037.9
231.0
546.0
420.0
45.0 28.5
71.4
60.5
115.0
60.0 25.0
46.7 27.2
17.9
16.6
14.7
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
22.6
67.5
2,875.5
63.2
127.2
7.0 46.5
64.0 0.7 0.8 2.3
2.0
-10.0
-9.0
-14.9
0.5
25.0 -17.9
-2.3
0.2
55.0
3.4
-0.1
343.6

[Stage Direction]
MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1965-66 COMPARED WITH MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1964-65 (in millions of dollars)
Administration	Buildings, Works	Grants, Subsidies	Totaland Operation	and Equipment	and Other Items	EstimatesAgriculture	
73.0Atomic energy	
40.7Auditor General's office	
1.8Board of broadcast governors	
0.4Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	
2,4Chief electoral officer	
0.2Citizenship and immigration	
77.9Civil service commission	
7.1
External affairs-
Department	 30.9
International joint commission	 0.2
Finance	 154.5
Fisheries	 22.8
Forestry	 10.7
Governor general	 0.7
Industry	 31.0
Insurance	 1.0
Justice	 40.2
Labour	 31.9
Legislation	 14.0
Mines and technical surveys-
Department	 35.6
Dominion coal board	 0.2
National film board	 6.3
National gallery of Canada	 1.5
National health and welfare	 50.8
National research council, including the medical research council.	28.0
National revenue	 92.0
Northern affairs and national resources	 45.0
Post office	 221.3
Privy council	 4.3
1964-65*	1965-66	1964-65'	1965-66	1964-65*	1965-66	1964-6569.1	33.4	25.9	15.4	13.8	121.8	108.735.0	13.0	10.3	1.6	1.2	55.3	46.61.4	-	-	-	-	1.8	1.40.4	-	-	-	-	0.4	0.42.1	-	-	97.0	85.9	99.4	88.00.1	-	-	-	-	0.2	0.164.6	14.3	12.4	0.1	-	92.3	77.05.5	-	-	-	-	7.1	5.526.1	2.3	1.8	100.0	96.2	133.2	124.00.2	-	-	-	-	0.2	0.2137.7	0.5	0.2	1,557.6	1,311.7	1,712.6	1,449.720.0	4.9	3.4	1.9	1.2	29.6	24.69.6	4.3	2.9	44.3	38.4	59.3	50.90.7	-	-	-	-	0.7	0.723.6	-	-	-	-	31.0	23.60.9	-	-	-	-	1.0	0.935.4	25.6	16.1	-	-	65.8	51.630.4	-	118.3	105.3	150.2	135.712.5	-	-	-	-	14.0	12.532.1	7.2	5.5	14.3	16.6	57.1	54.20.2	-	-	15.5	16.0	15.7	16.25.8	0.4	0.3	-	-	6.7	6.11.3	-	-	-	-	1.5	1.348.2	5.3	3.7	1,334.7	1,211.7	1,390.8	1,263.726.1	6.7	5.7	34.2	26.1	68.9	57.987.4	-	-	-	-	92.0	87.437.7	30.1	27.6	22.6	22.8	97.7	88.1208.9	-	-	-	-	221.3	208.93.5	-	-	-	-	4.3	3.512610	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Main Estimates
Public archives and national library-
Public archives	
i.i	0.8	-	-	-	1.1	0.8	National library	
0.7	0.5	-	-	-	-	0.7	0.5	Public printing and stationery	
3.4	2.9	-	-	-	-	3.4	2.9	Public works-	Department	
90.5	85.5	76.0	60.4	50.2	60.0	216.7	205.9	National capital commission	
6.8	5.4	12.1	4.5	-	-	18.9	9.9	Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
72.0	67.6	3.9	3.8	-	-	75.9	71.4	Secretary of State-	Department	
8.0	6.9	-	-	-	-	8.0	6.9	Centennial commission	
8.2	3.5	-	-	9.0	4.0	17.2	7.5	Economic council of Canada	
1.0	0.8	-	-	-	-	1.0	0.8	Office of the representation comm	
0.6	0.2	-	-	-	-	0.6	0.2	Trade and commerce-	Department	
50.4	54.2	0.1	0.1	31.8	46.7	82.3	100.9	National energy board	
1.0	0.7	-	-	-	-	1.0	0.7	Transport-	Department	
144.4	132.1	104.0	79.9	47.8	54.7	296.2	266.7	6Air transport board	
0.8	0.7	-	-	-	-	0.8	0.7	WBoard of transport commissioners	
1.6	1.4	-	-	21.0	12.1	22.6	13.5	OCanada maritime commission	
0.4	0.3	-	-	33.5	37.0	33.9	37.3	KNational harbours board	-	5.3	2.1	-	-	5.3	2.1	toSt. Lawrence seaway authority	
2.7	2.8	-	-	-	-	2.7	2.8	toAtlantic development board	
0.9	0.5	-	-	35.0	-	35.9	0.5	I-*Unemployment insurance commission	
32.7	31.9	-	-	62.5	60.5	95.2	92.3	05Veterans affairs	
67.1	63.5	3.0	3.3	294.7	264.0	364.8	330.8	TOTAL-CIVIL DEPARTMENTS	1,520.7	1,388.8	352.4	269.9	3,943.0	3,486.0	5,816.1	5,144.7Defence production- Department	
Emergency measures organization	
Crown companies	
National defence	
17.4 	
2.7 	
4.1 	1,235.0	16.4 2.6 4.8 1,236.5	2.2 1.8 0.2 290.1	1.4 2.1 0.3 253.9	5.2 24.9	5.6 34.6	19.6 9.7 4.3 1,550.0	17.8 10.3 5.1 1,525.0TOTAL-DEFENCE DEPARTMENT	1,259.2	1,260.3	294.3	257.7	30.1	40.2	1,583.6	1,558.2TOTAL-BUDGETARY ESTIMATES	2,779.9	2,649.1	646.7	527.6	3,973.1	3,526.2	7,399.7	6,702.9
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding).
'These figures differ from those shown in the 1964-65 column of the 1965-66 blue book in that the amounts of the supplementary estimates, 1964-65 are not included.
Main Estimates
[Stage Direction]
Main Estimates
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Kings): Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with a high degree of interest to the involved and highly technical statement just made to the house by the Minister of Finance. I do not propose, of course, to discuss it in any detail this afternoon. It is always inadvisable to do so at any time before one has had a chance to consider the figures; and particularly in view of the fact that the minister has told us this afternoon that there is no basis of comparison between these estimates now being tabled and the estimates which have heretofore been tabled it certainly would be a waste of time for me to indulge in any attempt at comparison. I quite appreciate the fact that there have been changes in the format and presentation, and there are many other matters which enter into the picture.
I am particularly intrigued, however, by the fact that the minister says there can be no comparison made until after he brings down his budget. I presume this implies a very early presentation of the budget to the House of Commons, and it is obvious from this that the minister is expecting to produce the budget improving his financial position a great deal in the near future. I am confident that he can, because the prosperity of which we hear so much is based on policies established by the prior government.
I am not going to discuss the details further at the moment. As the minister says, they can be discussed much better when the budget has been brought down and when we have had a chance to compare the very involved figures representing the total estimates for the next fiscal year and those of former years.
I am also somewhat intrigued by one matter. I am not sure what the minister's intention is. Ordinarily when the minister brings in his estimates he moves, after all statements have been made, that the estimates be referred to the committee of supply. Whether he intends to do that this afternoon I am not sure, and quite frankly I have not checked the rules to see what the situation is. However, I am sure it is the great hope of the house that in the very near future this session will be prorogued and a new session started. I would expect that the life tenure of the committee of supply might be in question if prorogation should take place. It may be that simply as a matter of courtesy the minister is supplying the house with the estimates this afternoon for us to consider prior to his moving to refer them to the committee of supply in the subsequent session.

On the other hand, if he intends to move-such a motion this afternoon I should like to-reserve my position as to the legality of such a procedure.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that now is not the time to try to make any exhaustive comment on the minister's presentation this afternoon. We shall have an opportunity to do that later when he brings down his budget, and I might say that the house always awaits the budget of the Minister of Finance with great interest, shall I say, and perhaps a certain anticipation.
There is one thing for which I have looked and have not been able to find, but I was hoping I would be able to find some indication of a substantial increase in our efforts toward world development in the way of the advance of credits and grants to the developing countries. I have in mind the fact that Canada supported the United Nations resolution for the devotion of 1 per cent of our gross national product, an amount agreed upon by most developed countries, to be paid toward development in other countries. This would entail an item of some $430 million. No one knows at the moment whether we will achieve that objective. I hope that somewhere in the minister's calculations there has been a provision for a very substantial increase in Canada's contribution toward world development and, by that means, toward world peace.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: As has
been pointed out, it would be difficult, if not impossible and perhaps undesirable, to comment on the details of the estimates that have just been tabled by the Minister of Finance. We note, however, that there are another $7 billion of estimated expenditures with which this house is going to deal during the next session of this parliament, which may begin soon as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggested. However, if we look at some of the legislation still to come before us and some of the other points of contention, it may not be as soon as the President of the Privy Council would hope.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, are alarmed at the increase again of an estimated $62 million in interest charges on the national debt. This is something that goes on year after year which we, at least, cannot accept as an inevitable thing. We think something could and should be done about it. Nevertheless this item appears every time the blue book is presented to this parliament; there

is a large and significant increase in these debt service charges, particularly the aggregate amount of interest that is paid on the national debt.
We believe that the appendix which gives some details of the establishment respecting staffs and so on is a very useful addition to this blue book, because it will give us an opportunity to make some comparisons from year to year in over-all employment in the public service.
The last words of the minister's statement this afternoon were to this effect: "I should like to emphasize again that the main estimates which I have tabled in the house today do not provide any reasonable comparison of total expenditures for next year with those of the current year or previous fiscal years." I remember, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago we had a rather interesting debate on this particular matter between the Minister of Finance, the previous minister of finance the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and other members. There seemed to be some deliberate attempt by the Department of Finance to mislead the house. I am not suggesting that this was an acknowledged thing, that they did not put in accurate figures with respect to the debt service charges, but it was suggested if the situation were otherwise it would be possible for some people familiar with these things to anticipate what was going to be in the next budget.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would reach a point some time when the estimated expenditures as the Department of Finance can calculate them will be closer to the actual number of dollars spent, rather than have parliament faced with this statement year after year that we cannot use these estimates as a basis for any reasonable comparison.
Now, this is perhaps not a deliberate way of trying to deceive the house, but it seems to me there are no qualms about putting in figures that will not give the house an opportunity of making a valid or reasonable comparison. Somehow, Mr. Speaker, I think we should try to get around this problem.
In conclusion, I hope the House of Commons can find some way of dealing with the 24 departments and $7 billion so we will not find ourselves spending about 80 days in committee of supply passing the details of this expenditure through the house. To a greater or lesser degree all hon. members specialize in certain departments. There has been a great deal of criticism of the house when it is in committee of supply due to the fact that there are from only 30 to 40 and some-
Main Estimates
times up to 60 members present when the estimates of a particular department are being considered, with all the other members, who specialize or are interested in other departments, waiting for that particular department's estimates to pass.
It seems to me we need to devise some other way so that members can be looking into more than one department at the same time. The fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization made some suggestions in that regard, and I hope action can be taken on it fairly soon.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in a matter of a few minutes the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has announced that the government would spend the tidy sum of $7,400 million next year. It only took him about six or seven minutes to announce that the government would be spending that amount.
To be able to announce, just like that, such astronomical expenditures must make the Minister of Finance feel quite important.
However, in listening to the Minister of Finance I could not help but think that in the final analysis that amount would be coming from the Canadian taxpayers' pockets. Canadian citizens throughout the country will be paying taxes for a whole year in order to ensure that the federal government treasury can afford to spend the $7,399 million referred to.


Mr. Caoueile:: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: In other words, the Minister of Finance announced that such expenditures would be made, but it would be proper to announce that the Canadian citizen will have to pay taxes and that the money thus collected will be derived from his labour, his sweat, his profits, his interests.
As pointed out a moment ago, the greatest increase forecast will be in the interests to be paid on the national debt: $1,101 million next year. This is twice as much as family allowances to be paid out across the country; it is more than what will be spent on unemployment assistance and more than what will be spent for the hospital insurance or the pension plans.
As a matter of fact, when I look at the vote respecting unemployment assistance, on page 225 of the report, I find that last year $115 million have been spent in this respect while the same amount is earmarked for this year.

Main Estimates
As far as the debt is concerned, interest charges have increased by $63 million, which is equivalent, by itself, to 50 per cent of the forecast expenditure for unemployment insurance.
In looking at the items in respect of old age assistance, and assistance to the blind and the disabled, I find an increase of only one and a half millions, whereas with respect to the debt service charges, there is an increase of the order of $63 million.
Therefore, where is the Canadian government going in 1965?
I appreciate that the Minister of Finance prefers to talk with those around him instead of listening to the truths now being pointed out to him; but why could he not try, with the help of competent officials, to modernize the method of preparing the budget which is established according to procedures dating back to 1910? As a matter of fact, the budget is still being prepared as it was in 1900. Why could the Minister of Finance not introduce in the future a budget taking into account every Canadian citizen instead of the financiers? At present one seventh, that is, for every dollar spent, from 15 to 18 cents will be paid in interest to high finance and increase our national debt.
It is another Liberal budget favouring capitalists, chartered banks, financiers and not a budget in favour of the Canadian people, of workers, of the unemployed and of farmers in general.
What is done for the latter? They are practically forgotten in the new budget presented this year. Young people are forgotten because family allowances are not increased; old people are forgotten, the unemployed and the farmers also. Who is remembered? That is where the highest increase is made, the interest on the public debt is taken care of. That is what the Minister of Finance keeps in mind.
In closing I will say that the Minister of Finance is doing his job well. He was chosen by Toronto's Bay street to help the financiers, and that is what he keeps on doing in his 1965 budget.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that printed: copies in French of all the evidence given before the special committee on pensions have been made available to the members.
Now that the evidence has been printed and distributed in both languages, I am of the opinion that there is no need to consider any longer the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that the question of privilege automatically becomes void.
At this stage I should like to thank most sincerely the members of the other political parties, especially the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), members of the official opposition and even the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) for having so openly supported the question of privilege raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron).
Under the circumstances I do not think we could challenge your ruling concerning our question of privilege.
With the consent of the hon. member for Beauce we could drop the question of privilege and come back to the principle of the Canada pension plan which has not yet been passed by parliament and about which we shall certainly have more to say.



MR. NIELSEN-REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE DORION COMMISSION-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege raised on Friday last by the hon. member for Yukon could perhaps be divided into three parts. The first one relates to the attendance of members in general. In this regard my attention was drawn to standing order 5, which reads as follows:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house.
In W. F. Dawson's volume entitled "Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons", at page 89 it will be seen that the above standing order has remained unchanged since confederation. For the first ten years of its life the House of Commons enforced this rule. A member who wished to leave Ottawa requested

leave through a colleague. Reasons for the absence were generally given, and examples may be found of the plea of "urgent private business", "family affliction", and "severe illness" to excuse a member from his duty. Although this rule still appears in our standing orders, it would seen that since 1877 the formal granting of leave of absence to a member of the house is a practice which has fallen into disuse.
Bourinot deals with the subject of attendance of members at page 153 of his fourth edition, in the following words:
Members of the Senate and House of Commons are expected to attend regularly in their places and perform their duties under the constitution In case of unavoidable absence it was formerly customary to have the reasons explained to the house, and leave given to the member to absent himself from his duties.
Then in the following paragraph he adds:
The practice in old Canada, as in England, was to have a call of the house and order all the members to attend on a particular day, but this practice has now become obsolete-no cases having occurred since 1867.
In the British house the formal granting of leave of absence to a member has also largely fallen into disuse, as will be seen by referring to page 369 of May's seventeenth edition. Very interesting historical notes as to the attendance in the house are to be found at pages 112, 113 and 114 of the second volume of "The Procedure of the House of Commons" by Redlich. This study is too long to be quoted here, although it confirms the view that the former practice has largely disappeared in the British house.
It might be well to underline here that with regard to standing order No. 5, as well as with regard to any other standing orders of the house, we must keep in mind paragraph 3 of citation 8 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the house is generally guided, not so much by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the house with respect to them.
It is my view that I have today to interpret standing order 5 in the light of what has been the practice of the house with respect to it for so many decades, unless it would be the intention of the house to revive the old practice. Otherwise I would feel that I am deciding that many of us and of our predecessors since 1877 have, at one time or another, been guilty of contempt of parliament for having been in disobedience of an order of the house during that period.
Question of Privilege
The second point which the hon. member brought to my attention seems to relate to the attendance of members as witnesses outside parliament during a session, and he referred to May's fifteenth edition at page 121, where it is stated, in part, that "members of both houses are, by the law and custom of parliament, exempted from attendance as witnesses during the session of parliament".
May, in his seventeenth edition at page 76, deals with the privilege relating to members summoned as witnesses, in the following terms:
The service of a subpoena to attend as a witness has been treated as a breach of privilege by the house and the parties responsible for service have on occasions been committed to the Sergeant for contempt. It is doubtful, however, whether under present usage the actual service would as a general rule be regarded as a breach of privilege, unless effected within the precincts of the house, sedente domo, on the general principle of the service of civil process. But-
And I wish to stress this:
-the privilege of exemption of a member from attending as a witness has been asserted by the house upon the same principle as other personal privileges viz., the paramount right of parliament to the attendance and service of its members; and in certain cases on the matter being raised by the member concerned the Speaker has communicated with the court drawing attention to this privilege and asking that the member should be excused. On other occasions the Commons have granted leave to their members on the ground that their attendance as witnesses was required and have admitted the same excuse for defaulters at calls of the house-
Concerning the same matter, Campion in his third edition at page 64 makes the following statement, and once more I wish to stress the doctrine:
The doctrine that a member's attendance in the house takes precedence of all other obligations once enabled him to resist a subpoena to attend as a witness, but this privilege is now regularly waived.
In that regard, may I mention here that while the attendance of a member in the house is to be considered an obligation on the part of a member, the exemption from attending as a witness is to be considered as a privilege which attaches to members of parliament individually and which is derived from such obligation of attending the service of the house. It is my view that although the individual privilege of a member to be exempted from attending as a witness subsists, such a privilege, being based on the paramount right of parliament to the attendance and service of its members, an absence from the house for the purpose of attending as a witness should be dealt with in the same

Question of Privilege
manner as any other absences by members; and considering the practice followed in this house for many decades, I do not see that there is an urgent necessity for a member to obtain leave to attend as a witness unless it is intended to implement standing order 5 in all cases of absences of members.
The third part of this question of privilege, which seems to me entirely different from the two others, is to the effect that by the law of parliament no member is at liberty to give evidence elsewhere in relation to any debates or proceedings in parliament except by the leave of the house of which he is a member.
The hon. member has drawn my attention in particular to section 11 of the report of the select committee on the official secrets act in the British house during 1938-39, which appears at page 423 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
May, at page 63 in his seventeenth edition, deals with evidence before the courts as to proceedings in parliament in the following terms:
The practice of the Commons regarding evidence sought for outside the walls of parliament touching proceedings which have occurred therein also conforms to article 9 of the bill of rights. This fact is well recognized by the courts, which have held that members cannot be compelled to give evidence regarding proceedings in the House of Commons without the permission of the house.
At page 62 of the same volume May gives the meaning of the term "proceedings in parliament", as follows:
The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of "proceedings" (which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century) is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the house in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the house takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision.
In reading in Hansard what was said last Friday, it would seem that the intention of the hon. member for Yukon would be to assist the commission in any way he can and that he would like to be at liberty, if necessary, to answer questions on matters which have, in one way or another, been before the house and not to be placed in a situation, should he be called up to do so, where he could not give evidence as to what has been said in the house.
Consideration has also been given by me to the fact that the matters dealt with by the Dorion commission have been many times referred to in this house, either in debate or otherwise; and I have borne in mind the

views expressed by the hon. member for Peace River, to the effect that there is an indication that it will be the intention of the commission counsel to examine the member for Yukon as to what he said in this house, and to that extent the Hansard record with respect to the statements he made might be the subject of considerable discussion and questioning when the commission resumes its proceedings.
In the light of those remarks, as well as in the light of the reference given by the hon. member for Yukon and the last quotation from May's seventeenth edition, I am of the opinion that the hon. member, in order to have complete freedom and also in order to avoid possible complaints of breach of privileges after he has given evidence, has grounds for requesting leave of the house to give evidence involving the proceedings in this house, and I would be inclined to consider the request for leave by the hon. member as arising out of a matter of privilege.
Therefore I would accept at this time a motion to the effect that the hon. member for Yukon be granted leave to give evidence before the Dorion commission in relation to debates and proceedings in parliament with regard to the things that may be dealt with in the inquiry.
On Friday last a motion was presented to the Chair by the hon. member for Greenwood. It would appear to me that the wording of that motion is hypothetical and irregular, since no members other than the member for Yukon have asked for leave to give evidence in relation to debates and proceedings of this house.
To summarize my view, I would say that in my opinion the matter which is to be considered as arising out of a matter of privilege is not, if we consider our practice, the member's request to obtain leave of absence from the house but rather the granting of leave for him to give evidence in relation to the debates and proceedings of this house.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister take it upon himself to provide that initiative to introduce the necessary motion?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The Speaker's decision was that any member could make this motion on behalf of the hon. gentleman, or he could ask for somebody to make it on his behalf. I suggest that the hon. gentleman take that responsibility himself.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am not allowed to discuss your ruling in any way. I think the manner in which you have dealt with it is a remarkable example of Solomon at his best. However, under the circumstances, particularly in view of the Duncan Sandys case in 1938 in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister in his responsibility should make the motion in question. That seems clear and definite.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to argue the matter now. I simply refer to the debates in the British House of Commons on June 27 and 29. From a reading thereof it is apparent that he who has the responsibility of prime minister is the one who should make the motion.


Erik Nielsen: As guardian of the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that the hon. member for Yukon could make his own motion if he so desired; it would be received. Or I think anyone in the house could make it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I simply make this appeal to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite treat the matter lightly, but there is involved here a very fundamental question of privilege and they should take it seriously. The Prime Minister does have the responsibility of being guardian of the rights of this institution and all members in it. I suggest to him that to make the matter one of absolute propriety he should discharge his responsibility and introduce that motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe you are the guardian of the rights of the house. You have made your ruling, and I am very happy to abide by it.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege having to do with another matter.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further discussion we must proceed with the business before the house. There should be no discussion of the decision; at least I hope there will not be too much. There is a new question of privilege before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the other question of privilege

Question of Privilege



MR. KNOWLES-DENIAL OF ENTRY TO U.S. PROFESSOR

Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of questions and answers in the House of Commons on Friday last, March 19. As reported at page 12574 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister certain questions regarding a report that Professor Mulford Q. Sibley was going to be denied entry into Canada for the purpose of delivering a lecture at a public meeting that was to be held in Winnipeg Friday evening. I asked my question just before the luncheon adjournment at one o'clock. The Prime Minister indicated that he would look into the matter during that adjournment. In fact he was very precise; he said he would look into it at five minutes past one.
When the house resumed at 2.30 I asked the Prime Minister, as recorded at page 12575 of Hansard, whether he had any further information regarding Professor Sibley. In his reply the Prime Minister indicated that he had made certain investigations during the luncheon recess and that those investigations were proceeding. He ended his statement with this sentence:
The man in question has not yet appeared at the border, and I hope that as a result of the investigation which has been made there will be no difficulty in this regard.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is generally known that even before the Prime Minister made that statement at half past two on Friday, Professor Sibley had already been questioned at Winnipeg and been given the option of either remaining in custody until a tribunal considered his case or returning to Minneapolis on the plane on which he had come.
Mr. Speaker, I am not alleging that the Prime Minister sought to mislead the house by the statement he made at half past two on Friday. In fact I must point out that I telephoned the Prime Minister's office about three o'clock Friday afternoon, and I was informed that the information he gave the house at half past two was the latest information he had received at that time from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, there is recorded in Hansard a statement which does not accord with the facts as they were at that time, and as a matter of privilege I feel that there should at least be a statement by the Prime Minister

Question of Privilege
reconciling what he said at 2.30 p.m. on Friday with the tact that Professor Sibley had already been sent back to the United States.
May I also point out that the Prime Minister on Friday said he hoped there would be no difficulty in this regard, namely in respect of the case of Professor Sibley, whereas press reports indicate that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had given the order the day before that this professor was not to be allowed entry into Canada for the purpose of making the scheduled address. That is another point which it seems to me we should have reconciled.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, amongst others who had protested this action the governor of Minnesota, Karl Rolvaag, has issued a public protest declaring that what had happened was unbelievable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of privilege, when the governor of a state of another country complains about our denial of fundamental human freedom, we should have a statement about the matter from the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister responds to this question of privilege, as I hope he will, I hope he will also tell us whether the questioning of Professor Sibley and the refusal to allow him to come in was an isolated incident, or whether this is an established practice on the part of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Because I have raised this question as a matter of privilege, I have prepared an appropriate motion which would call for the matter to be referred to a committee for investigation and report, but I will refrain from putting that motion at this time. I will wait until Your Honour has heard other comments on the situation and has decided whether this is the kind of question of privilege which should be followed by a motion. In any case, in view of the various irreconcilable facts which I have recited, I hope the Prime Minister will attempt to reconcile them in order that the good name of Canada, as a place where we believe in freedom of speech, can be maintained.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to deal with the question of privilege, and that is all I have any right to deal with at this time.
I should like to say at the outset that I do not consider that a telegram of protest from the governor of a state in the United States necessarily means that there is a question of privilege before this House of Commons.

Some of the other observations made by the hon. gentleman I think are perfectly proper, but I am not sure they are proper in terms of the motion of privilege which the hon. gentleman is contemplating.
I am very glad indeed to deal with the matter he has raised because, as he pointed out, I did make the statement in the house on Friday that the man in question, Professor Sibley, had not yet appeared at the border. It is true that he had crossed the border at that time, but as my hon. friend has stated, he was not suggesting that I was deliberately misleading the house. If there had been a suggestion of that kind made I would be the first to move that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
In order to clear away the difficulty to which he has made reference I should like to point out that after questions were interrupted on Friday by the luncheon recess, I returned to my office and asked for a full report in compliance with my undertaking. I did so immediately after one o'clock, and I received information from the department concerned through the head of the branch that Professor Sibley at that time had not reached Winnipeg, and that they did not know when he was coming to Winnipeg or, indeed, if he was coming.
That was all the information I had from 1.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m., at which time I checked again before coming into the house. If the professor did not come to Winnipeg- and I was told by the department that there was not any information that he was in fact coming-then of course the difficulty would have been resolved. If he was coming later, which I thought was more likely, then I felt there would be time for me to look into the matter, examine the situation and perhaps resolve the difficulty in consultation with the minister.
When I returned to the house at 2.30 p.m., Mr. Speaker, that was the information I gave to my hon. friend who asked the question. That was exactly the information I had received from the department concerned. It is true that later-I think it was around three o'clock-I received information to the effect that Professor Sibley had indeed landed in Winnipeg, had been interviewed at the airport and given the alternative of appearing before a special committee of inquiry or returning at once to Minneapolis. He took the latter alternative and returned to Minneapolis. When I received that information the question

period had concluded in the House of Commons, so I conveyed it by telephone to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister another question. Does the Prime Minister have information as to the time Professor Sibley arrived in Winnipeg and the time he was sent back, and does he also have information concerning the report that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had the day before approved the order not to allow him in?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister had approved the order the day before that he be not admitted without a special examination or unless an organization made an application for his admission so the matter could be looked into at once. It is true that the minister made that decision on Thursday afternoon, or some time on Thursday.
So far as the times are concerned, I understand the aircraft reached Winnipeg airport at 1.20 p.m., eastern time, and that Professor Sibley was interviewed at once by the immigration official at the airport. I understand that interview continued until shortly after 2 p.m., at which time the professor boarded the same plane and returned to Minneapolis. I understand that the official of the department made a report to the department of immigration shortly after 2 p.m. He did so by first writing, no doubt for his own information, and then by telephoning the department. As soon as the department received that information they phoned my office and conveyed it to me, and as soon as I received it I conveyed the information to the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the Prime Minister is one that brings a large degree of negligence to the department of immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, the Prime Minister acted on that information and advised this house of the facts he had, yet at the very time he was advising this house his departmental officials must have known the true facts, which they must have concealed from the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that observation?
Question of Privilege


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said the allegation that the departmental officials in Ottawa concealed the true facts from me is untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, everything is untrue about these facts, apparently. Let me suggest that the word "untrue" now has become parliamentary, although the word "false" was not parliamentary the other day. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that his heated rejoinder indicates a guilty conscience on his part.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: This house has a right to true and complete information. Let me point out the fact that the day before, on the Thursday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had apparently refused this man admission into Canada except if the person in question would qualify certain reservations. We have a right to know what those reservations were. What manner of man is this? What offence has he committed? What was the danger in allowing him to come into Canada?
Certainly the explanation by the Prime Minister adds a great deal more to the cloud of suspicion that Canadians as a whole feel regarding this incident. The house is entitled to a far better explanation than has been given up to the moment. I ask the Prime Minister to give it, rather than to be so supersensitive as to become annoyed immediately when there is any reference to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which has certainly had a most unusually neglectful record in the last few months.
I ask the Prime Minister this. What offence had Sibley committed? What were his views that were going to be detrimental to the people of Canada? In what way would his presence here constitute a danger to the nation, for such must have been the fact? Whether or not you agree, certainly in the market place of ideas there is no reason, unless there are words of sedition or a record in that regard, to prevent a person from another country from coming into Canada and placing his views before a Canadian organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I very carefully refrained from dealing with the question of substance because that was not the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The right hon. gentleman has, of course, gone beyond the question of privilege.

Question of Privilege
In regard to the question of substance I would say only this, and I have a right to say it because of what has been said. I have asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to go to Winnipeg to investigate the circumstances surrounding this case and to return to Ottawa and report to me and also make a report to the House of Commons on the whole matter as soon as he gets back. He will be in Winnipeg looking into this matter later today.
With regard to one point raised by the right hon. gentleman on the question of privi-ledge, he twice made the allegation that the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa had held back the facts from me. That was the statement he made. In fairness to officials who cannot speak for themselves, and out of respect for the truth, Mr. Speaker, I say that statement is untrue. The officials of the immigration branch got the telephone call from the airport at Winnipeg after the plane had gone back. The official at Winnipeg had made his own notes and that telephone call was received in Ottawa at 2.45 p.m. So perhaps the right hon. gentleman will withdraw the allegation in fairness to the civil service.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether that was the fact, and the Prime Minister hid behind the civil service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He hid behind them.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister owes the house a great deal more explanation than we have had so far. The Prime Minister has explained why he was not able to get the information at 2.30 on Friday that Professor Sibley had already been turned back at the border, and that he could not get that information from the civil service here in Ottawa. The fact is that the minister and presumably the department had already decided, the day before, that Professor Sibley was to be turned back at the border.
Does this mean that the minister and his senior officials had made this decision on Thursday, yet at 2.30 on Friday they did not know that this decision had been made and could not transmit it to the Prime Minister when he asked for this information? Either there is a complete breakdown of communication in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or there is a breakdown between the department and the Prime Minister's office. I say the Prime Minister owes the

house more explanation than to tell us that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will return to the house and give the house a full explanation.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have a right to know why this man was turned down. A moment ago the Minister of Fisheries-


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. The points made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam may be very important points, on which he and other members of the house may wish information. I do not dispute that for a moment, but I do dispute that it is possible to do so under a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre alleging a certain discrepancy between statements made by the Prime Minister in response to questions and certain facts later produced. That discrepancy is a proper question of privilege and has been dealt with. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite improper under the rules to conduct a debate on the substance of the issue involved in the question of privilege, and to ask questions which can be properly asked on the orders of the day and especially can be asked of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. All I am suggesting is that we observe the regularity imposed by the rules and deal with these matters in their proper place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am glad the Minister of Labour has intervened and given us the benefit of his quite helpful views. It does seem to me we have had a pretty full discussion and that the sensible thing is to await the return of the minister concerned and his report on the matter rather than to theorize at this time. Inasmuch as there is no motion before the house at the moment I therefore suggest once more that the sensible thing is to await the minister's return. As of the moment there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. When this matter was being discussed and the Leader of the Opposition was asking certain questions the Minister of Fisheries said that this man was a communist. He interjected that this man was a communist. Surely, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -if the minister is going to be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is always interesting to listen to the hon. member, but I have given a ruling and a decision that as of the moment there is no prima facie case, and the hon. member is out of order in continuing to discuss that decision. Once more I suggest that for the sake of good order in our business we wait until we have a proper explanation and have the facts before the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a point of order, not on the question of privilege which is before the house. I simply say it is surely not in order for one of the ministers to give a reason for this man being kept out of the country unless we are allowed to discuss-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is trying to dispute or discuss or carry on a debate after the Chair has ruled that the matter should be terminated.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Honey.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, recent increases in steel prices have raised the broader question of the relationship of prices, costs and incomes to sustained economic growth. The government's objective is to achieve high rates of such economic growth while maintaining a reasonable measure of price stability.
I believe that it would be useful to launch a broad examination into these matters. For that purpose we are fortunate in having in the economic council of Canada an agency which, by virtue of its terms of reference, its representation from all elements of the Canadian economy and its highly qualified staff, is suited for this kind of task.
The government is therefore requesting the economic council:
1.	To study factors affecting price determination and the interrelation between movements in prices and costs and levels of productivity and incomes.
2.	To report on their relationship to sustained economic growth and to the achievement of high levels of employment and trade and rising standards of living.
3.	To review the policies and experiences of other countries in this field and their relevance for Canada.
Canadian Economy


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with this announcement, I may say it was difficult to follow exactly what the government has decided because the statement was read rapidly by the Prime Minister. However, this looks to me like an endeavour on the part of the government to get rid of this whole question by simply a generalized placing before the economic council of the relationship of wages and prices and the contributing factors to increases in prices. This is a long way from what is needed today in connection with the situation relating to steel.
The increase in steel prices-I am not talking about its justification at the moment -can only lead to a widening and greater expansion of inflation. What the Prime Minister has done has been to brush it aside, as I see it, in a generalized form of presentation by asking the economic council to consider all phases of price relationship, rather than dealing with the question of steel which is a matter of first importance. I am sure the people as a whole will see that this is simply a means, a subterfuge if I may be allowed to use that expression, to get away from facing the situation regarding the increase in the price of steel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad the government is finally seized of the importance of the recent increase in the price of steel. I think it was about two weeks ago that I first raised this matter in the house. I contended then that the increase in price was both unwarranted and unjustified. Since that time there has been a steady stream of price increases by other steel companies which have followed the lead of the Steel Company of Canada. Undoubtedly this will have the effect of increasing the prices of commodities which have a steel content, particularly cars, appliances, building materials and so on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when this matter was first raised the government took the position it was largely due to an increase in wages. I take it that position has been completely demolished, because since 1957 hourly earnings have increased by only about 26.5 per cent. This increase has not even kept pace with the increase in productivity, so that the labour cost of steel has declined by $5.36 per ton. Profits in the same period have been up 106 per cent for the Steel Company of Canada, which was the first company to increase the price.

Canadian Economy
The Prime Minister has taken the course of referring this matter to the economic council of Canada. One of the goals which the economic council set in their annual report was the stabilizing of prices over the period under consideration. Certainly if prices are going to remain reasonably stable-and the economic council set an annual increase in prices of 2 per cent-then this is a matter which must cause them a great deal of concern.
I have serious doubts, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the economic council of Canada is the body best equipped to make this kind of investigation. They are a body for collecting data and doing economic forecasting. This situation is going to require a very intense investigation, the calling of the steel company representatives and other persons who are interested, trade unions, the consumers of steel products, and investigations into the financial statements of the companies, labour costs and profits. I would have thought the government would have set up a royal commission to look into this matter.
I would have thought, too, the government would have asked the restrictive trade practices branch to see whether these increases which are being adopted by all the steel companies warranted some action under the restrictive trade practices legislation. There would seem, on the face of it, to be some indication of collusion and in price fixing.
It may be that an investigation by the economic council of Canada is better than nothing. However, I do not believe that this body is equipped to carry on this type of investigation or to make the kind of report which must be made speedily if any action is going to be taken. I point out that a report six months or eight months from now is worthless. This increase in the price of steel will have its economic repercussions over the entire economy.
The Financial Post recently published a long list of the various sectors of the economy that will be affected by this increase in the price of steel. A lengthy investigation by the economic council of Canada, along with all the other things it has to do, will not meet the situation which confronts the people of Canada. This requires a highly specialized and intensive study carried on immediately and recommending specific action by the government of Canada in order to prevent serious price increases right across the economy. I am of the opinion that the economic council of Canada is not likely to be able to make the kind of report

quickly enough and the kind of recommendations that will prevent this spiral of inflation which is undoubtedly going to follow the increases in the price of steel.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning the increase in the price of steel which the federal government is apparently going to accept and which, according to the previous speaker, would be due to the wage increase granted a few weeks ago.
Now, I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that wages alone cannot determine a price increase. Nevertheless, they are still partly responsible for the rise in the price of steel.
Increasing the company's profits requires or contributes to a general increase in the price of steel. Today the government is bringing forward a policy designed to have the Canadian people accept a general increase in the price of steel. But we have in Canada a body that can detect exactly where a trust exists.
I think that a combine exists in the steel production industry. The government should assume its responsibilities concerning this steel combine the purpose of which is to keep prices at a high level because, after all, this price increase will be paid by the Canadian consumers generally, even though the leader of the New Democratic party tells us that this increase is not solely due to wages. He nevertheless refers to the official paper of his party, the Financial Post, to point out that steel prices are set independently from wages paid.
But, in the final analysis, it is neither the government members nor the members of the opposition nor even the leader of the New Democratic party who will be paying the shot; it will be the Canadian consumer.
We say, Mr. Speaker, that this steel price increase, instead of being made in this way should be made by the government through the allowance of a compensated discount to steel producers so that consumers may pay less for needed facilities and products, such as automobiles, refrigerators, electrical appliances, in short, everything made of steel.
The government would then be discharging its duties better than it is doing now. Wages are included in prices, whether we want it or not; the pension benefits paid by industries are also included in prices. All plans, whatever they may be, are included in prices and, in the final analysis, it is the

consumers, the workers, the farmers and the people as a whole who are paying the administration or, if you wish, the distribution costs.
Our technique differs considerably from that of the government. It is up to the government to decide whether the increase in price granted to the steel industries will be more beneficial to the Canadian people than the compensated discount technique advocated by Social Credit for nearly 40 years.
I think the Prime Minister of Canada is indeed aware of the means we are suggesting. He knows very well that the means he is putting forward today to increase the steel prices will in no way solve the distribution problem in Canada. Let the right hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet work instead toward finding a better solution to the distribution of Canadian wealth for the people and among the people who are building Canada. Then, we shall give our unconditional support to the right hon. Prime Minister.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which relates to his announcement on motions today regarding the investigation into recent steel price increases. In view of the very serious rounds of inflation that this is likely to touch off, will the Prime Minister give some leadership comparable to that of the late President Kennedy, or perhaps use the prestige of his office to influence the companies to hold off these price increases until the economic council has completed the study it is to make?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to accept the premise that these price increases will set off serious rounds of inflation. I hope that will not be the case.
Regarding the last part of the question, my constitutional position, as I have said before, is not the same in a matter of this kind as that of the president of the United States who can take certain action which a Canadian prime minister cannot take in these matters.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constitutional problem, but my question was more in the nature of whether the Prime Minister would use the influence of his office to prevail upon these people to hold off these price increases until this very important study can be completed.
Questions QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



PENITENTIARY SENTENCE OF JOSEPH TREMBLAY, VANCOUVER

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was Robert Joseph Tremblay of Vancouver sentenced to prison and, if so, when?
2.	Where did his trial take place?
3.	What were the charges against Robert Joseph Tremblay?
4.	What sentence did Robert Joseph Tremblay receive?
5.	Where did Robert Joseph Tremblay serve his sentence?
6.	Was Robert Joseph Tremblay transferred from the penitentiary in British Columbia to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and, if so, what was the reason for this transfer and by whom was the decision made?
7.	Were representations, either by letter or oral, made to the Minister of Justice urging that Robert Joseph Tremblay be transferred to St. Vincent de Paul and, if so, by whom and when?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Robert Tremblay was sentenced to penitentiary on December 19, 1955 and on November 23, 1956.
2.	His trials took place in Vancouver and New Westminster, British Columbia.
3.	A first charge for attempted murder and a second charge for forcible seizure.
4.	He was sentenced to 20 years on the first charge and to 1 year consecutive on the second charge.
5.	6 and 7. Robert Tremblay was admitted to the British Columbia penitentiary on June 5, 1956. He was transferred to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on June 29, 1964 by authority of a removal warrant signed for the commissioner of penitentiaries by Mr. J. R. Stone, deputy commissioner of penitentiaries, on June 16, 1964.
This transfer was arranged in the following circumstances:
The deputy commissioner of penitentiaries was making a routine inspection of the institutions in British Columbia in February 1964. En route to the William Head institution, the warden of British Columbia penitentiary informed the deputy commissioner that Tremblay, after having been dissociated from the other inmates for over five years, had so changed his outlook that he was in the minimum security institution at William Head. However, he had requested to see the warden to ask for a transfer back to British Columbia penitentiary as he was unhappy in the open dormitory living at the William Head institution.

Questions
The deputy commissioner suggested to the warden that Tremblay should be staged through a medium security institution to prepare him for minimum security and, as there was no medium security prison in British Columbia, Tremblay, because he intended to live in Quebec after his release, should be transferred to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary with the object of his eventual transfer to the Leclerc medium security institution. Tremblay requested a transfer to the Leclerc institution accordingly.
Making routine arrangements for the transfer and the fact that it would not be effected until an escort could be provided by officers from British Columbia coming east to attend staff college delayed the issue of the transfer authority until June 16, 1964.
This transfer was a routine one in the best interest of the inmate's rehabilitation and was effected without any outside pressure on the penitentiary authorities. No representations, either by letter or oral, were made to the Minister of Justice concerning it.



EXPENDITURES ON SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Does the government plan to increase expenditures on scientific activities in the 1964-65 fiscal year and, if so, what will be the amount of the increase and the total amount spent?
2.	On which specific activities will such an increase be spent and how much will go to each?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1 and 2. Certain information concerning estimated expenditures on scientific activities in the 1964-65 fiscal year is contained in a report of a biennial survey entitled "Federal Government Expenditures on Scientific Activities Fiscal Year 1963-64", copies of which are
expected to be available from the Canadian government printing bureau by April 1965. Copies will be available to all members.



RESEARCH INTO EFFECTS OF ACIDS ON CANCER

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the government conducted or supported research into the effects of linoleic, linolenic, 2-decenoic, oleic and 9-deeenoic acids on cancer in experimental animals and, if so, what have been the results of such research?
2.	Have the same or similar tests been conducted on human cancer and, if so, what have been the results?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the national research council as follows:
1.	No.
2.	No.



TENDERS FOR NEW FLAG

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Were tenders called for the new Canadian flag for Canadian government buildings and, if so, how many firms submitted tenders?
2.	Which was the lowest bid and which firm was accepted?
3.	What has been the cost of providing new flags for Canadian government buildings?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Questions
Lowest bid
Contractor
D.N.D. Items 1
4
6 7
(.R.C.A.F.)
Size 1'6* x 3'... Scythes & Company Limited	
"	2'3" x4'6".... Scythes & Company Limited	
"	3' x 6'	
Smith-Anderson Co. Ltd	"	3' x 6'	
Scythes & Company Limited	"	4'6" x 9'... J. J. Turner Company Limited	"	6' x 12'.... J. J. Turner Company Limited and Smith
Anderson Co. Ltd. submitted the two lowest bids respectively
8	"	3' x 6'	 Scythes & Company Limited
Scythes & Company Limited Scythes & Company Limited Smith Anderson Co. Ltd.
Scythes & Company Limited J. J. Turner Company Limited Contract awarded to Scythes Company Limited who had submitted the third lowest bid as the capacity of the two firms submitting lower offers was utilized on contracts for other requirements.
Scythes & Company Limited
D.N.D. (Navy)
Items 1 Size 1'6" x 3'.... Scythes & Company Limited	
2	"	2'3"	x 4'6".... Scythes & Company Limited....3	"	3' x	6'.... Smith Anderson Co. Ltd	4	"	4'6"	x 9'.. J. J. Turner Co. Ltd	5	"	6' x	12'... J. J. Turner Co. Ltd. and	Smith Anderson
Co. Ltd., submitted the two lowest bids respectively
6	"	7'6" x 15'. J. J. Turner Co. Ltd,
Scythes & Company Limited Scythes & Company Limited Smith Anderson Co. Ltd.
J. J. Turner Co. Ltd.
Contract awarded to Scythes & Company Limited who had submitted the third lowest bid as the capacity of the two firms submitting lower offers was utilized on contracts for other requirements.
Contract awarded to Scythes & Company Limited who had submitted the second lowest bid as the capacity of firm submitting lower offers was utilized on other requirements.



RESEARCH INTO TRACE ELEMENTS AND DISEASE

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the relationships between the distribution of trace elements in Canada and the occurrence of disease and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
2.	What is the annual cost to the government of such research?
3.	What have been the results to date of such research?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the national research council as follows:
1.	No.
2 and 3. N/A.



FUNDS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
With reference to the annual report of the medical research council, to the effect that there is a critical need for funds for construction and equipping of medical research laboratories, and for the provision of full time salaries for teachers and scientists, has the government decided to provide extra funds and, if so, in what amount?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government has provided funds for medical research in accordance with long established policy, but has not provided extra funds, through the medical research council, specifically for the construction and equipping of new medical research laboratories, or for the provision of full time salaries for teachers and scientists.
Funds provided to the medical research council are not used for the construction of university buildings. The medical research council's funds, however, are used to provide grants for the purchase of a small amount of special research equipment and to provide for salaries of a number of full time scientists located in Canadian university laboratories. The amounts allocated annually to these support activities are increasing, but the proportion of the total funds available for these activities has remained almost constant.



EXPENDITURES ON MEDICAL RESEARCH USING ANIMALS

Mr. Scoit: 1.	During the year 1964, what was the total amount of money advanced by the federal government for medical, pharmaceutical and allied research in which animals are used?
2.	To what category of groups was such money advanced and how much was advanced to each
12S26

Questions
such group, such as universities, hospitals, individuals etc.?
3.	Does the government have plans tor any extension ol this type of research and, if so, briefly what is the nature of any such plan?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	Under the national health grants, substantial funds were allocated by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1964-65 for health research including projects sponsored and submitted by the provinces for medical, pharmaceutical and allied research but it is not possible to segregate these funds according to research in which animals are used or are not used.
Animals are used in various projects by the national research council, but no records are kept on the basis of where animals are used.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	The national research council, including the medical research council, plans to continue to support experiments involving the use of experimental animals as required for the advancement of the broad fields of science and medicine.



REPORT ON ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BY GUY A. LINDSAY

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Can the Department of Transport now locate a copy of "The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Deep Waterway-a Brief Description" by Guy A. Lindsay, director, special projects branch, Department of Transport, December 22, 1951?
2.	Is this the report which was referred to by the then hon. member for Laurier at page 1179, Hansard, February 19, 1959, and, if so, was the said copy supplied to the hon. member by the Department of Transport?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. On
January 15, 1960 the then minister of transport, Mr. Hees, in a return to a motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur tabled a copy of "The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Deep Waterway-a Brief Description" by Guy A. Lindsay, director, special projects branch, Department of Transport, dated April 28, 1951. No copy of a report bearing the same title but dated December 22, 1951, can be located.
2.	It would now appear that the report by Mr. Lindsay dated April 28, 1951, is the one and the same report as the then hon. member for Laurier referred to at page 1179 of Hansard of February 19, 1959.



PURCHASES OF NEW FLAGS

Mr. Coales: 1.	How many new flags of various sizes have been purchased by the federal government and what has been the cost to date for the purchase of these flags?
2.	How many flags will be necessary to fulfil the immediate obligations of the federal government and what will be the total cost of the flags in question?
3.	What is the estimated length of time necessary to secure the federal government's requirement of flags?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	(a) Contracts for the purchase of 16,684 new flags as follows, had been placed prior to February 15, 1965:
1'6" x 3'	1,150	$ 2,064.002'3" x 4'6"	500	$ 2,149.503' x 6'	9,900	$51,985.504'6" x 9'	3,250	$29,340.006' x 12'	1,825	$33,680.007'6" x 15'	59	$ 1,507.78
16,684
(b) The total contracts in respect of (a) were $120,726.78.
2.	Of the 16,684 flags purchased, 15,585 were required by proclamation date and the cost of these was $110,641.78.
Note: The Department of Public Works assumed the responsibility for filling the immediate needs of all civilian federal departments.
3.	Approximately 25 working days from the date of contract.



UNION DECERTIFICATION, C.N.R. POLICE

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the labour relations section of the C.N.R. tried either to (a) have the certification revoked of the union representing the C.N. police, or (b) made any approaches through the director of the C.N. police to the rank and file under him promising a substantial increase in salary if the men did drop out of their union?
2.	If there is any substance to part 1 (a) what are the grounds on which the C.N.R. argues that there should not be a union representing their C.N. police?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) The Canadian National Railways has filed an application with the Canada labour relations board to reconsider and revoke the certification issued to the Canadian National Railway police association on May 18, 1960; (b) no.

2.	The company's application is based on the definition of "employee" as defined in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.



REMOVAL OF CROWN FROM GOVERNMENT INSIGNIA

Mr. Bell: Has the crown been removed from any insignias of standard or quality or other government seals or designations of any department of government during the last two years and, if so, by whose order and for what reason?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Department of Trade and Commerce as follows:
The standards branch uses seals and stickers as evidence of inspection. Since these are used throughout Canada, it was felt desirable that where words appear on the seal or sticker these should be in both the English and French languages. The seal used for wax imprints under the Electricity Inspection Act and the Gas Inspection Act is relatively small so that, as a result of the incorporation of both languages, the crown design, if included, would have been rendered too small in size. In the interest of uniformity of the evidence of inspection by the branch, stickers used under the Weights and Measures Act were redesigned in the same format. Seals which carry no wording are also in use, and on these the crown design appears.
This is the only instance of such a change reported.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT GUARANTEE FUND

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What has been the state of the Post Office Department guarantee fund (section 5, paragraph 1 of the Post Office Act) at the end of each fiscal year since its inauguration?
2.	How was the original fund obtained?
3.	If from employees, how was the levy made; is it still being assessed and, if so, on whom does it fall and who determines the amount of the levy?
4.	What have been the payments out of the fund, by year, since its inauguration?
5.	In the last two fiscal years, what were the individual cases for which the fund was tapped?
6.	Who determines and what is the quantitative scale when a postal employee has made an error which cost the department money, whether the loss should be made up by the individual employee or from the fund?
7.	Has the Auditor General ever made any comments on the fund and, if so, in what years?
8.	Has the post office had any suggestions from employee organizations in the past ten years about the use of the fund, and, if so, when, from whom and to what effect?
20220-799J
Questions


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1.	Figures showing the state of the post office guarantee fund are not available from its inauguration in 1898. However, they are available for the following fiscal years ending 31 March:
1930-31	$285,008.34
1931-32	289,182.36
1932-33	309,695.12
1933-34	319,811.25
1934-35	325,097.14
1935-36	334,159.29
1936-37	345,578.09
1937-38	354,042.66
1938-39	363,690.30
1939-40	373,244.27
1940-41	381,400.03
1941-42	391,065.64
1942-43	404,597.38
1943-44	408,253.40
1944-45	416,862.96
1945-46	423,619.69
1946-47	427,226.94
1947-48	432,021.31
1948-49	437,266.93
1949-50	421,160.10
1950-51	405,806.39
1951-52	392,620.38
1952-53	391,579.97
1953-54	408,061.57
1954-55	408,613.51
1955-56	411,211.78
1956-57	409,038.60
1957-58	407,964.15
1958-59	409,149.97
1959-60	416,023.45
1960-61	418,782.47
1961-62	421,939.02
1962-63	423,870.62
1963-64	438,997.90
2.	The fund was originally derived from moneys assessed against postal employees and mail contractors.
3.	Assessments were made as follows: Mail contractors, 1 per cent of contract rate from 1898 until 1909 when it was discontinued. Postal employees, 1898-1907, rate was 40 cents per annum for each $100 bonding. Employees were covered for amounts varying from $200 to $5,000 depending upon their classification and the size of the office. 1907, rate reduced to 25 cents per $100. 1913, rate reduced to 15 cent per $100. 1919, all assessments abolished and fund has been self supporting since then.
4.	Figures showing payments out of the fund prior to 1 April 1930 are not available.

Questions
However, they are available for the following fiscal years ending 31 March:
1930-31	$10,048.94
1931-32	4,962.82
1932-33	3,631.90
1933-34	3,471.71
1934-35	7,706.29
1935-36	3,889.92
1936-37	1,741.60
1937-38	4,860.80
1938-39	4,749.75
1939-40	4,483.83
1940-41	6,026.85
1941-42	5,228.56
1942-43	5,810.75
1943-44	10,701.47
1944-45	7,128.81
1945-46	10,373.72
1946-47	12,771.15
31 March 1963 Net charge to	
Responsible	post office
employee	guarantee fund
Postmaster	$ 4.27
Postmaster	882.20
Postmaster	824.08
Postmaster	206.07
Postmaster	226.64
Postmaster Postmaster and	8,681.86
assistant	112.34
Postmaster	7,950.24
Postal clerk	37.25

6.	Officials of the Post Office Department determine whether the loss should be charged to the fund based on the following policy:
All losses of cash or accountable postal values which are the responsibility of a postal employee or mail contractor by virtue of his default or negligence are regarded as collectible from the person.
If the department is unable to collect the full amount of such loss from the person, the balance is charged to the guarantee fund.
Postal revenue is used to pay all indemnities for lost C.O.D., registered, and insured items. It is also used to make good losses caused by fire, theft and forgery. Where the magnitude of a loss due to a postal employee's or a mail contractor's default or negligence is greatly disproportionate to the negligence 
1947-48	7,806.22
1948-49	8,628.36
1949-50	33,563.92
1950-51	9,534.14
1951-52	15,498.64
1952-53	8,974.54
1953-54	16,584.25
1954-55	19,868.48
1955-56	8,829.18
1956-57	13,919.22
1957-58	13,728.15
1958-59	12,229.13
1959-60	11,102.11
1960-61	16,293.93
1961-62	16,440.02
1962-63	18,924.95
1963-64	6,340.67
5. Adjustments of post office shortages during the year ended:	
31 March	1964 Net charge to
Responsible	post office
employee	guarantee fund
Postmaster	$ 282.84
Postmaster	508.32
Postmaster	455.36
Postmaster	371.60
Postmaster	304.17
Postmaster	1,661.53
Postmaster	470.03
Postmaster	1,211.61
Postmaster	1,061.98
Rural courier	13.23 $6,340.67
involved, a large part of the loss is charged to postal revenue with the approval of treasury board.
7.	The Auditor General has made comments on the post office guarantee fund in his "Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons" which accompanied the public accounts for the following fiscal years ending 31 March 1949, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1959, and 1960.
8.	No.



AIR SERVICE TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY PRO VIN Cl ALLY OWNED COMPANIES

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is there any federal government regulation or ruling that prevents provincially owned air services supplying service to the federal government or to any of its agencies and, if so, are there any exceptions to this regulation or ruling?

2.	When did this regulation or ruling first come into effect?
3.	Has this regulation or ruling ever been reconsidered and, if so, when did this occur and what was the decision?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. An
air carrier owned by a provincial government has, under ordinary circumstances, been restricted to the province and operations from bases outside the province have not been permitted. The only exception to this arrangement applies in the case of the Saskatchewan provincial government air services which were in 1951 authorized, in the public interest of its regular specific point to point service, to serve Flin Flon, Manitoba, from its base in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. In addition Saskair is authorized to operate an international charter service from its base at Prince Albert. Where a provincial government carrier advances satisfactory evidence of public interest as required by the Aeronautics Act, the carrier may be licensed within the province. Such a provincial government carrier is not prohibited from bidding on federal government contracts involving services within or originating in the povince.
2.	The ruling came into effect March 24, 1949.
3.	The ruling was reconfirmed by the governments in power in 1959 and more recently in 1962.



LOBSTER FISHING, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many lobster fishing licences were issued in each lobster fishing area of Nova Scotia in 1962, 1963 and 1964?
2.	What were the catches in each lobster fishing area for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.	Lobster licences are issued each year for the period October 15 to October 14 following. District breakdown only readily available for period October 15, 1963, to October 14, 1964.
It is as follows:
Lobster district	No.	3	404Lobster district	No.	4	6,966Lobster district	No.	5	2,334Lobster district	No.	6A	154Lobster district	No.	6B	1,885Lobster district	No.	7A	735Lobster district	No.	7B	2,344Lobster district	No.	8	378
15,200
Questions
Totals for 1961-62 and 1962-63 are 14,184 and 14,989 respectively.
2. District	1962 lbs.	1963 lbs.	1964 lbs.No.	3	251,122	251,914	234,232No.	4	9,299,113	10,362,500	10,759,456No.	5	2,508,339	2,757,703	1,773,517No.	6A	379,921	312,786	236,448No.	6B	2,138,748	1,858,667	1,716,192No.	7A	328,795	229,538	158,070No.	7B	4,434,037	4,088,222	3,909,053No.	8	664,028	362,594	326,259Total	20,004,103	20,223,924	19,113,227



EXTENSION OF TELEVISION COVERAGE, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Coates: When could an application by CJCH-TV for extended coverage in the Cumberland-Westmor-land area be considered by the board of broadcast governors?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the board of broadcast governors as follows:
The board considers any application transmitted to it by the Minister of Transport. The board understands that an application by CJCH-TV for an extension of service to cover the Cumberland-Westmorland area would not be transmitted by the Minister of Transport until such time as the policy announced in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State on July 6, 1964, has been changed.



CIVIL SERVANTS IN POLITICS

Mr. Caouette: 1.	What is the government's policy with regard to civil servants who wish to get involved in politics?
2.	May a civil servant publicly join a political party without running the risk of losing his employment?
3.	May a civil servant be a candidate (a) in a federal election (b) in a provincial election (c) in a municipal election, and be sure of keeping his employment should he be defeated?
4.	If not, does the government intend to allow civil servants to engage in political activities?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the civil service commission and the Prime Minister's office as follows:
1. Civil servants may take part in any activity which is not precluded by section 61 of the Civil Service Act which reads as follows:
"(1) No deputy head or employee shall: (a) engage in partisan work in connection with any election for the election of a mem-

Questions
ber of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories; or (b) contribute, receive or in any way deal with any money for the funds of any political party.
(2)	Every person who violates subsection (1) is liable to be dismissed.
(3)	No person shall be dismissed for a violation of subsection (1) unless the alleged violation has been the subject of an inquiry at which that person has been given an opportunity of being heard personally and through his representative."
The civil service regulations make specific provision for participation by civil servants in municipal affairs. The relevant section, 71 of the regulations states:
"(1) The deputy head may grant to an employee seeking election to a full time municipal office leave without pay for a period of 30 days.
(2) A deputy head may grant to an employee elected to a full time municipal office leave without pay for the term of that office.
2 and 3. See 1 above.
4.	The government does not propose to make any change in the existing legislation or regulations.



CHANGE OF NAME

Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Is it possible for a Canadian or naturalized Canadian to change his surname?
2.	May a Canadian who has changed his name occupy a position in the public service under his new name?
3.	Can he vote under his new name?
4.	Can he be legally known under this new name?
5.	Does his new signature nullify the first one?
6.	Are documents bearing his first signature still valid after the change?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These are questions seeking legal opinions and it would not be in accordance with the practice of the house to reply to them.



AUTOMOBILE PARTS FOR EXPORT TO RED CHINA

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the Prime Minister's office received any
representation from East West Export Company Limited, East West Export (1960) Limited, or Gain Import Company Limited, all of Vancouver, British Columbia, since January 1,	1956, concerning their inability to obtain a supply of certain types of automotive parts for export to the People's Republic of China?
2.	If so, on what dates were such representations made?

3.	Were the difficulties being experienced by these companies attributed to a refusal of subsidiaries in Canada of United States automobile manufacturers to supply parts for export to China?
4.	What were the names of the companies referred to?
5.	What answers were sent from the Prime Minister's office as a result of these representations?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1 to 5. A telegram from Gain Import Company Limited of Vancouver concerning the export of automotive parts to China was received by the Prime Minister on May 10, 1963, and was referred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his attention. The company was so informed on May 20, 1963.



Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce received any representations from East West Export Company Limited, East West Export (1960) Limited, or Gain Import Company Limited, all of Vancouver, British Columbia, since January 1, 1956, concerning their inability to obtain a supply of certain types of automotive parts for export to the People's Republic of China?
2.	If so, on what dates were such representations made?
3.	Were the difficulties being experienced by these companies attributed to a refusal of subsidiaries in Canada of United States automobile manufacturers to supply parts for export to China?
4.	What were the names of the companies referred to?
5.	What answers were sent from the Department of Trade and Commerce as a result of these representations?
6.	Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce any knowledge of the reason for the refusal by Chrysler Canada Limited to supply crank shafts part No. 2129055 with bolt part No. 1821177 and washer No. 1855561?
7.	What were the reasons for the refusal by the Department of Trade and Commerce to grant an export permit requested August 27, 1962, by Gain Import Company Limited, for the export of 130 Dodge engines complete part No. 923402?
8.	What were the reasons for the refusal by the Department of Trade and Commerce to grant an export permit requested November 2, 1962, by Gain Import Company Limited, for the export of 65 Dodge crank shafts part No. 2129055?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes.
2.	Search of files has so far revealed three such direct representations, dated February 12, 1963, April 26, 1963, June 27, 1963. One further communication dated May 10, 1963, addressed to the Prime Minister was also received.
3.	Representations so alleged.
4.	Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Limited and Brentwood Dodge ltd.

5.	The complainant was advised that the department cannot intervene between suppliers, local dealers, and customers in their business arrangements.
6.	No.
7.	It has been the policy not to issue a permit for export to communist China if the goods to be exported have a significant content of imported U. S. components.
8.	I am advised that it was the policy during the border warfare between communist China and India not to issue permits for export to communist China of products other than grains.



TELEPHONE TAPPING BY R.C.M.P.

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the R.C.M.P. arrange to tap a projected telephone conversation recently, between Mr. Pierre Lamontagne and Mr. Guy Rouleau, M.P. and, if so (a) did the R.C.M.P. make Mr. Pierre Lamontagne aware of these arrangements to tap the projected telephone conversation (b) did the R.C.M.P. make Mr. Guy Rouleau, M.P. aware of these arrangements to tap the projected telephone conversation?
2.	Does the R.C.M.P. tap telephones and, if so,
(a)	how frequently (b) is this done with the knowledge of one or both of the parties participating in the telephone conversation (c) what are the conditions under which the R.C.M.P. taps telephone conversations (d) under whose authority are such telephone conversations tapped?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, which thereby deals with subparts (a) and
(b)	of that part.
In answer to the second part of the question I repeat the answer to a similar question which was given in this house on February 26, 1962 by Hon. J. W. Brown, former member for St. John's West, when speaking for the Minister of Justice:
In accordance with long established policy I am declining to answer this question in the public interest. Questions such as this, and all others which have been asked regarding investigational procedures, could in due course, if answered, lead to disclosure of all methods which must necessarily be employed to protect the security of this country. Such revelations would be of great interest and value to groups within and outside Canada who have used conspiratorial methods to obtain Canadian information to which they are not entitled.
There should be no inference taken from my remarks and the form of my reply because such discussions, in whatever form they take, can only tend to imperil the difficult investigations which have to be carried out in the interests of our country. The policy of this government, and previous governments, has been to decline to answer such questions as not being in the interests of the public, and there is no intention of changing this policy.
Questions



EMPLOYMENT IN POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, DINGWALL, N.S.

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
How many residents of Dingwall, Nova Scotia, have received employment under the winter works program to date in the construction of the post office building at that location?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: One.



ANGELO FORTE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

Mr. Fisher: Is there an employee of the manpower consultative service. Department of Labour, by the name of Angelo Forte and, if so, what are his qualifications, educational and industrial?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Angelo Forte is employed as an administrative officer 8 in the manpower consultative service branch of the department.
His qualifications are as follows:
Educational: St. Louis du Mile End, Montreal, Grade 9 completed; Ecole Technique de Montreal, 1 year; University of Montreal, 1938-40 specialization in economics and social sciences.
Experience: economic council of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, May 1963 to November 1964 as a regional officer at $10,900 per annum; Confederation National Trade Unions, Montreal, Quebec, March 1940 to May 1963 as a technical adviser at $9,500 per annum; Dominion Coal Company, Montreal, Quebec, June 1930 to March 1940 as an inspector.



IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	For the years 1962 and 1963 (a) what was the number of immigrants to Canada (b) what was the number of emigrants from Canada and (c) what was the net gain in individuals?
2.	Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have any records which indicate the main reasons which impel Canadians to move to other countries and. if so (a) what are these reasons, and (b) in what proportions for each reason?
3.	What is the annual allocation by the department to encourage immigration?
4.	How many senior officers in the department have university degrees or diplomas?
5.	What is the number of new Canadians who came to Canada since 1960 and who have since left?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. (a) 1962, 74,586; 1963, 93,151; (b) the number of emigrants from Canada is estimated at: 1962, 75,000; 1963, 77,000; (c) the net gain in individuals is estimated at: 1962, nil; 1963, 16,000.
2.	No.
3.	It is not practicable to distinguish in the over-all operational costs of the immigration

Questions
branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration those expenditures solely attributable to efforts to encourage or promote immigration. It is possible to say, however, that in the last two fiscal years the following funds were allocated for the sole purpose of exhibits, advertising, films, broadcasting, displays and publication of departmental reports and other materials: 1963-64, $197,150 and 1964-65, $633,000. In addition, funds allocated for the over-all administration of immigration offices overseas amounted to a further $2,651,524 in 1963-64 and $3,296,200 in 1964-65, a substantial portion of which would be attributable to promotional work.
4.	The immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has on strength five officers in the senior officer classification, three of whom have university degrees or diplomas.
5.	Not available.



DEBT INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
Question No 2,933-Mr. Maiher:
1.	What, in dollars, was the increase in the federal debt in the period 1953-1963?
2.	What, in the same period, was the increase in private debt?
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The total outstanding direct and guaranteed funded debt of the government of Canada increased by $5,090 million in the period from January 1, 1953 to December 31, 1963. The net debt of the government, i.e., the excess of total liabilities over total assets, increased by $2,758 million in the period from March 31, 1953 to March 31, 1963.
2. The increase in the period from January 1, 1953 to December 31, 1963 in those forms of private debt for which statistical data are available was $22,722 million. This figure includes net new issues by corporations, loans to businesses by chartered banks and finance companies, consumer credit, loans to farmers by chartered banks and mortgage loans held by lending institutions and corporate lenders.



TRANSFERS FROM ENTOMOLOGICAL LABORATORY, CHATHAM, ONT.

Mr. Danforih: 1.	Have any of the personnel been transferred from the Chatham entomological laboratory, Chatham, Ontario?
2.	Are there any plans for transfer from the Chatham entomological laboratory of personnel in the near future and, if so, will the personnel be replaced or is this the first step toward the phasing out and closing of this laboratory?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.

2. Arrangements for the transfer of personnel are still under consideration.



CANADIAN MANUFACTURER OF DRUG LAETRILE

Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What is the name and address of the Canadian manufacturer which began the production and distribution of the drug laetrile in Canada in 1963?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: McNaughton
Research Foundation, 2015 Drummond street, Montreal, Quebec.



REMOVAL OF SANDBAR, THAMES RIVER, ONT.

Mr. Danforth: Has the Minister of Public Works given urgent and early consideration to the removal of the sandbar at the mouth of the Thames river, Kent county, Ontario, which was a primary cause of the disastrous flood in that area, in order to prevent a reoccurrence of such a disaster?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Dredging to prevent flooding is not the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. Such work comes within the jurisdiction of municipal and/or provincial authority. A survey of the entrance channel will be made this spring to determine the location of the channel for marking, and if any dredging is required in the interests of navigation.



LEASES OF FEDERAL PROPERTY, VANCOUVER HARBOUR

Mr. Nugent: 1.	Has the federal government granted long term leases to private developers on federal property In the Coal harbour area of Vancouver?
2.	Has there been opposition to the granting of the leases by various Vancouver organizations, including the Vancouver city parks board, Vancouver ratepayers' associations, community councils and so on?
3.	Has the government received communications from any local bodies opposing the granting of long term leases to private developers?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The national harbours board informs as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.



M. G. MACNEIL-EMPLOYMENT BY FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1. Has Martin G. MacNeil, Soldier's Cove, Richmond county, Nova Scotia, been employed at the

Lindlhoff fish culture station. Department of Fisheries, Saint Peter's, Richmond county, Nova Scotia?
2.	For what periods was he employed and in what years?
3.	For what reason was he not re-engaged in 1964?
4.	Is Mr. MacNeil a member of the civil service federation of Canada and what rights are afforded him as a result of being a member of this organization?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2.	1958, 6$ months; 1959, 6$ months; 1968,
8$ months; 1961,	11$ months; 1962,	12
months; 1963, 8 months.
3.	Services not required.
4.	Unknown. If a member, the rights Mr. MacNeil has would be in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of that organization.



STUDY OF LABOUR QUESTIONS, CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

['Mr. Speaker, we extended an invitation to Mr. Stewart to come to Ottawa at this time. Unfortunately his schedule is such that he can only stay the day and a half he has arranged for discussions in Washington. He must return to London to receive the president of Israel. We have been in touch with him directly, and vicariously. I will see him shortly in London.']
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Information is not available as to whether the auto industry or the labour unions conducted studies prior to the signing of the Canada-United States automotive agreement respecting the availability of workers and the kinds of skills needed for the additional production required. Discussions were held, however, with the Department of Labour and the united auto workers respecting the facilities which are available to train or retrain the additional workers who would be required by the industry to achieve greatly expanded production which would result from the plan.
2. Discussions have taken place between federal officials and provincial representatives respecting economic, educational and training aspects of the plan.



Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the duty paid by importers of a Lincoln Continental, Cadillac Fleetwood, Ford Thunderbird and Chrysler Imperial, prior to the Canada-United States free trade auto scheme going into effect in Canada?
2.	What was the list price of the above noted motor vehicles before the agreement went into effect and what is the list price of these vehicles today?
Order for Return


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The duty on these vehicles was normally 17$ per cent, however, if the Canadian automobile manufacturers had earned credits under the automobile plan introduced on November 1, 1963, it was open to them to import these vehicles duty free.
2. The government does not have price lists for these vehicles. Such lists pertain to suggested prices, which are not necessarily the actual prices at which sales are made.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Ormiston: 1.	What was the amount of the total earned income of the Indians of the province of Saskatchewan during the years 1912, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1963?
2.	What was the number of cattle owned by the Indians of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1963?
3.	How many bushels of grain were harvested by the Indians of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1963?
4.	What was the total Indian population of the province of Saskatchewan in each of the years 1912, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1963?
5.	How many employees were there in the Indian affairs branch March 31, 1963?
6.	How many Indians were there in the employ of the Indian affairs branch March 31, 1963?
7.	What is the highest ranking position held by an Indian in the employ of the Indian affairs branch?
8.	What is the name of the director of Indian affairs and what is the amount of his salary?
9.	When was he appointed?
10.	Was the position advertised by the civil service commission?
11.	What efforts were made to assure that competent Indians were given the opportunity of applying for the position of director of Indian affairs?
12.	What provisions are made by the civil service commission to give preference to Indians for employment in the administration of the Indian affairs branch?
13.	How many employees were taken on and added to the Indian affairs administration in the year 1963 and how many of these employees were Indians?
14.	What has been done to implement the recommendations of the joint committees of the Senate and House of Commons convened in 1949 and 1959?
Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister in a position to advise what was the basis of the order that was approved by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prevent Professor Sibley from coming into Canada? Has he asked any questions in this connection from the department, and what is the answer in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a few moments ago the minister is going to Winnipeg to investigate the circumstances surrounding this matter. As soon as he returns to Ottawa tomorrow he will be reporting to me and, of course, to the house, and I would hope the house will wait until his return tomorrow.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As
a supplementary question, could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to inquire whether Professor Sibley was told that he had the right to counsel? If not, why not? And would he ask whether Professor Sibley was told that a professor of law at the University of Manitoba was at the airport to represent him and was not permitted to represent him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already raised those points by telephone and they will be inquired into.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister is it now the custom in Canada that persons seeking to enter this country for a short period, such as to deliver a lecture, must give information as to their political affiliations before they are admitted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope not, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe it is the custom.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not the case that Mr. Cross, who was the person in charge of this case in Winnipeg, stated when he was interviewed by the press that Professor Sibley had once advocated the establishment of campus clubs dealing with communism, atheism, promotion of free love-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance wants to tax it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and other controversial subjects, and apparently Mr. Cross gave this as the reason why he was being rejected?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If anybody could figure that one out, I would like to know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Professor Sibley himself was under the impression he was rejected because he refused to make a statement that he never at any time had been a member of the


communist party, although unofficially he said he never had been. In view of these circumstances does the Prime Minister not consider that the question was, what was this man's political affiliation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will await the report of the minister. I appreciate the importance of these matters, if I may say so, as much as he does, and I would deprecate anything that was an unwarranted interference with the right of entry to this country. I hope my hon. friend will await a full report on this matter from the minister who is investigating it on the spot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister would he make one further investigation prior to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration making his report tomorrow, as to whether the information is correct or not, that not only was Professor Sibley rejected on Friday, but subsequently, when invited to take part in the C.B.C. program, "This Hour Has Seven Days," this man was again refused admission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I saw that statement in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly propose to look into it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister thinks that Professor Sibley's crime is that he proposed to excite the daring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Touche.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question that I would like to address to the Prime Minister has not anything in particular to do with the return of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; it has to do with the Prime Minister's own words of Friday as reported at page 12574 of Hansard, when he said:
I might say at once, though, that organizations sponsoring speeches in Canada such as ones to which my hon. friend has referred by persons whose admissibility to this country is a matter of question ordinarily seek permission for such entry, giving the authorities sufficient time to check and reach a decision.
My question to the Prime Minister is this, forgetting all about this individual case. Is it the policy of the government to force organizations that wish to invite a speaker here for one day to get a clearance from the government before that person is allowed in'


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; but there are occasions when this is desirable, in the light of the information which government officials have in respect of the man in question who is being invited or in connection with the organization which is inviting him.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that guilt by association?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am now coming back to this particular case. As I understand it, this man is a Quaker and a well known pacifist. Is this one of the organizations that the government is trying to keep out of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. Quakers are a highly respected sect; and pacifism I suppose when it is sincerely held is a highly respected ideal.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether the Voice of Women comes within the classification given a moment ago as an organization subject to suspicion. Is that what he meant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, through all these supplementary questions and discussion I found it difficult to refrain from asking a further question on the subject of Professor Sibley. It so happens that I was in Winnipeg on Friday lecturing at the Manitoba law school and witnessed the unfortunate proceedings. But I will save my question until tomorrow.


QUESTIONING OF PERSONS ENTERING CANADA FOR TELEVISION APPEARANCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Prime Minister, and perhaps the Minister of National Revenue might listen in. Is the Prime Minister aware of a report to the effect that one Robert L. Green from New York, who recently came to Toronto to appear on the Pierre Berton show, was whisked into a little private room for questioning, and that it is also reported that it is a new ruling around customs to question all people coming into Canada for television show appearances? Will the Prime Minister have this looked into at the same time as he has the matter of Professor Sibley inquired into?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I content myself by saying yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will send the report over to the Prime Minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is reported that the government of Tanzania has requested from the Canadian government financial assistance and personnel assistance in the establishing of an air force. In view of the fact that just today a further contingent of Canadian military training personnel is on the way to that country, can the minister tell us what the reply of the government is to this request, and what is the policy regarding giving further military aid to such countries?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the government of Canada decided a few months ago to give some assistance by way of training to units in the military forces of Tanzania. The government of West Germany has withdrawn some assistance. Our government has before it further requests for additional Canadian help. This matter is now under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The government has acted on the decision of the security council of the United Nations taken at its meeting of last Friday, to continue the mandate of the force in Cyprus. Today the government will advise the secretary general that it has decided to participate in that force for the three months ending June 26 next.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Canada has now agreed to supply forces in Cyprus for another three months, has there been any revision of the status of forces agreement to make absolutely sure that the peace force in Cyprus will have the necessary authority to discharge its responsibilities? This is particularly necessary in view of the fact that newspaper reports indicate that

Inquiries of the Ministry the Greek Cypriots have brought in large amounts of equipment from the Soviet union and that the Turkish government have threatened air attacks. Will the Canadian force and the other members of the peace force have the necessary authority to deal with any eventuality which may arise?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that in taking the decision which we have taken today we expect the secretary general of the United Nations to ensure that the force is able to operate with the necessary authority to carry out its mandate effectively. In this connection I asked the ambassador for Turkey resident in Canada, and the Greek charge d'affaires in Ottawa to come in and see me this morning. This and other matters were discussed with them. In addition, I have also received from the foreign minister of Cyprus, who is now in New York, assurances in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on two reports we have received recently, one to the effect that within recent days United States forces have been using two particularly horrifying weapons, napalm, and the latest one, a phosphorous weapon. In view of the fact it is only two or three weeks since the secretary general of the United Nations informed a television audience of presumably many millions, of which I was one, that he was quite sure that if the United States people were given access to the facts in respect of Viet Nam they would realize the time has come to stop hostilities, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he has been able to ascertain from U Thant these facts which, according to the secretary general are being withheld from the United States people, and presumably from the Canadian people by the United States government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been an opportunity to discuss these matters with the secretary general, including the meeting which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had with him a few days ago in New York.
Regarding the use of gas, we are making some inquiries. We have already had some discussion in this regard. I do not wish to go beyond this statement now. I will take ad-
[Mr. Douglas.)

vantage of this question to express regret that, notwithstanding the attitude taken by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, representing one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord group, which had sought to persuade the other co-chairman, representing the Soviet union, to join in an appeal to all parties in respect of the holding of a conference that might lead to a negotiated settlement, the other co-chairman has not accepted this suggestion. I hope that the action which the Soviet union has felt that it should take in this matter will be reconsidered so that the appeal which Great Britain and other countries have made for the cessation of hostilities might be accepted.
I will reconfirm what I said last Thursday, that there is no evidence that the government at Hanoi or the government of communist China is prepared at this stage to agree to a truce which might lead to a negotiated settlement. I do hope that some progress in respect of these appeals might be made.
In respect of what the secretary general of the United Nations said, undoubtedly there are many facts that are unknown to particular national groups. As the British Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, said the other day, the only way to get an objective appreciation of the facts in this complicated problem is to study not only the majority but the minority report of the commission which, as he suggested on Thursday last, gives a balanced view of the regrettable situation in Viet Nam.


Colin Cameron: I have a supplementary question. In view of the regrettable refusal of the Soviet union to accede to the request of the British government, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he, representing one of the governments which is involved in the truce commission, has been able to receive from the United States government an assurance that it is prepared at this time to enter into negotiations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the United States has given the assurance that if there was a cessation of the infiltrations and other acts of a provocative character by the north, it would readily agree to a course different from the one which it now feels is in its interests, and in the interests of Asia and peace in that area generally.


Colin Cameron: I have a further supplementary question. Is it not true that the government of

North Viet Nam has expressed its willingness to negotiate as soon as the United States has ceased its air strikes in North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware of any evidence that the government at Hanoi has given any undertaking of that kind.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will be taking advantage of the presence of the British foreign secretary on this side of the ocean to meet with him either in Washington or in Ottawa, through an invitation to the foreign secretary to come here to discuss this very important problem, which seems to be darkening?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we extended an invitation to Mr. Stewart to come to Ottawa at this time. Unfortunately his schedule is such that he can only stay the day and a half he has arranged for discussions in Washington. He must return to London to receive the president of Israel. We have been in touch with him directly, and vicariously. I will see him shortly in London.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the beginning of the resumption of this session the minister has several times been requested to extend the winter works house building incentive program and has been questioned in regard to the government's intentions in respect of that program. In all cases he said that the time had not yet arrived. However, in view of the fact that there are now only eight days to the end of this month, when the period of that program would end, and that a large number of builders have houses which they cannot possibly complete during that period, is the minister now in a position-and I think this would be only fair-to make an announcement in regard to this program so that the anxieties of the very many people concerned might be set at rest?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right; the time has just about arrived to make a decision on this matter, and an announcement. I hope it will be possible to make an announcement tomorrow or Wednesday.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ever-expanding requests on the part of Canadian construction firms and also construction employees, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet come to any determination in favour of extending the winter works program. I know he told us the other day that he felt he might be able to make a statement by Tuesday, and I should like to impress upon him the great necessity of this being done, having regard to all the circumstances disclosed in the communications that are being received from all parts of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being considered tomorrow and it is hoped that a decision will be reached and an announcement made tomorrow afternoon. Naturally the views of my right hon. friend will have a good deal of influence on the cabinet decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
All the groups in the house have had an opportunity this afternoon to put at least one question to the government. Now, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) has been trying for quite a while to put questions, but he has not yet been recognized.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in all honesty a member of our group could not be recognized before going back to other groups in the House of Commons? It seems to me that it would only be normal.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the ruling handed down by the United States department of justice, preventing the merger of Molsons Brewery with Hamm Brewery of California on the vague grounds that it violated anti-trust legislation, would the Minister of Finance review Canadian legislation in order that we may show the same diligence in preventing further

Inquiries of the Ministry encroachments into the field of Canadian economics and Canadian industry by American interests?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is very important, I know, but I do think it is a very good question for the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Try the late show.



NOVA SCOTIA-TAX CONCESSIONS TO MOTOR CAR COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question which was put to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) in connection with Canadian Motor Industries. The answer is that no tax and other concessions have been offered to Canadian Motor Industries over and above those available in other designated areas. I might say, however, that with respect to the customs tariff we would, of course, be prepared to consider giving Canadian Motor Industries the benefits of tariff arrangements comparable to those applying to other vehicle producers in Canada.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islei):: wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and also that of his colleagues, the Minister of Labour, to a most urgent question concerning the alarming and precarious situation facing the Canadian manufacturers and producers of maple syrup and maple sugar who operate in United States territory.
Is the minister aware that under certain amendments enacted recently apparently by the American secretary of labour the United States department of immigration has not yet set the usual security bonds nor issued travelling permits for the Canadian manufacturers of maple syrup who cannot cross the border to organize their shacks, prepare their equipment and tap the maple trees, as should be done at the present time?
This is a seasonal production which cannot be delayed if we wish to save this important sector of our economy.

What does the minister intend to do with respect to this matter?
On behalf of all the Canadian producers of maple syrup operating in the United States, can we expect this annoying and disastrous situation to be remedied as soon as possible?


Mr. Lambert:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important question, but I cannot give a precise answer before consulting my colleague the Minister of Labour.
We will give a reply tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member of the Ralliement Creditiste like to ask his question?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly half an hour ago that the hon. member for Dorchester wanted to ask the same question as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet.
I wonder whether, in applying the rules of this house, you could not somehow expel us from the house so that we could not ask a single question, although it is our right to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to have a little difficulty in pleasing everyone this afternoon, in particular a certain group, but nevertheless I am sure that conditions will improve shortly.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Two Japanese companies are now operating vessels off the Nova Scotia coast and there is a suggestion that Japanese interests may build a fish processing plant in the Atlantic provinces region. In view of the minister's reply to me on March 1 that there was no change in policy with regard to foreign fish landings, will the minister tell the house whether his department is presently carrying on discussions with Japanese interests and whether this will result in a change in policy that will permit the Japanese to land fish in Canada for processing and resale?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no negotiations are taking place between my department and Japanese interests regarding the matter raised by the hon. member. As I replied to a similar question addressed to me on March 1 by the hon. member, no foreign trawlers would be allowed to land fish in Canada except those chartered by the Department of Fisheries for experimental purposes. I could have added at that time that there is, however, a provision in the act in case of emergency-when a ship is in distress-but I wish to reaffirm government policy in this respect to the effect that no foreign ships are allowed to land fish in Canadian ports.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on March 12 the hon. member for York-Sun-bury asked a question about a survey in connection with the Hong Kong prisoners. The minister undertook to make an inquiry and give a reply today. The reply is as follows.
The latest information is that all the examinations of selected veterans have now been completed and all but three or four of the examination reports have been received. Work has now started on processing and correlating the data contained in these reports. It will take several weeks more before the evaluation is completed and conclusions can be drawn.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. Has the minister been informed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been relieved of his post of house leader for the New Democratic party as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday last?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am sure this question although interesting is hardly of such pressing urgency that we need to discuss it.


Mr. Slarr:: It is not of national importance.


Mr. Howard:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I transgress the rules and label this as utterly false?
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamillon South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister which is not hypothetical. In view of the fact that the Bergsmas are seeking redress under the bill of rights from the injustices of the Citizenship Act, would the government consider bearing the legal costs of their appeals and consider amending the act so that future appeals of this sort are unnecessary?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
(Translation)
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Could he tell the house what progress the Department of Finance has made in the coining of new mint series to meet the requirements of coin collectors in Canada?
We receive many requests every day.
Does the department make an active effort in the coining of those series in order to meet the requirements of Canadians who want them for their collection?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the department is dealing with this, and I hope to make a full statement before the end of next month.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of which I have sent her notice. With reference to a news report in the Toronto Daily Star of Friday, March 19, 1965 to the effect that British doctors have been warned not to give tetracycline drugs to expectant mothers because they might kill the women or cause deformed babies, may I ask the minister whether similar instructions have been issued by her department?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Instructions were issued by the food and drug directorate on July 21, 1964 to all manufacturers and distributors of tetracycline preparations to include a warning statement in the package insert and physicians literature of their oral and parenteral tetracycline preparations.



PRIORITIES WITH RESPECT TO TRANSLATION SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a question for the Prime Minister. On Wednesday last I asked him, with reference to his examination of the situation governing the provision to this house of the French version of the committee reports, whether he would look into the matter of priorities asserted by some other of his colleagues. Has that question been gone into?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have made inquiries and the priorities which were given earlier to the translation of the proceedings of the committee were not interfered with by any action of the kind suggested by my hon. friend. That is my information.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the Prime Minister would look at the dockets and the scheduling of dockets over at the printing plant.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask this somewhat darkling question with respect to the proposal of the federal government to establish a national dairy authority. Can the parliamentary secretary assure the house that any government policy established in this respect will not conflict with the provisions of the B.C. milk industry act and its regulations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe this question is in order. The hon. member was gracious enough to send me a copy of his question, but I would refer him to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 171 (bb), which refers to asking the government's opinion on matters of policy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I should like to have a go at ten o'clock.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicioria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I have already given him notice of the matter which, for a number of reasons, is of importance to the people of lower Vancouver island and the B.C. mainland. Has the minister received a letter from the minister of highways in British Columbia asking for federal aid in widening to four lanes the only highway leading to transportation from lower Vancouver island to the mainland, namely from Victoria to Victoria airport and the provincial ferries? Is the federal government prepared to join in this project?


Gilles Grégoire: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


David Walter Groos: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
I think it is just as important as the question we heard about maple syrup, and I should like to discuss it at ten o'clock.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Justice, but since he is absent from the house, probably explaining co-operative federalism somewhere, I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether there is any regulation under which all Canadian workers are obliged to have a social insurance number? What are the sanctions or penalties provided for those refusing to abide by that regulation? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
CONGRATULATIONS ON PROGRAM On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question

to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman pass on to the C.B.C. my warmest congratulations, and those of most hon. members, I am sure, in respect of the excellent television program which appeared last Monday night when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) were brought together in a debate. I am sure we all found this type of political debate much more constructive and informative than the currently popular "hot seat" interview. Let us have more of this type of program.
I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of that debate, but in view of his temporary absence from the house I should like to reserve my right to ask him the question.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary put a question on March 10 which was taken as notice on my behalf by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The answer to the first part of the question is to be found on page 12332 of Hansard. The answer to the second part is that the Post Office Department has completed a preliminary survey of the effect of the removal of mail from Canadian Pacific trains 3/7 and 4/6. Ivly officers assure me that there is a satisfactory alternate pattern which can be developed.
Detailed studies are now being made of individual services which will have to be established to provide comparable service to that now being given. Such studies will effectively counteract any diminution of service to communities in the interior of British Columbia and in fact to all areas of Canada at present receiving postal service by C.P.R. trains 3/7 and 4/8.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was last debated I had just commenced my remarks and had tried to put forward two thoughts. The first was: Why did we move an amendment asking in effect that the government give further and more cautious consideration to the course that is being followed? The second had to do with the position of the provincial governments in this whole debate.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out and emphasize what I said last Wednesday, namely that there is a vague but very deep uneasiness over the question of the so-called opting out legislation. I should like to refer to certain evidence in that regard, some of it not very strong but other parts quite strong. If you read the answers from the provincial premiers to the government of Canada concerning Bill No. C-142 you will find that only one premier approves, the premier of Quebec. Most of the premiers are simply noncommittal. But if you look at the reply from Saskatchewan you will find that they are concerned about this program. If you look at the one from Manitoba you will find that the government of that province is more interested in the rationalization of our fiscal relationships.
These replies provide evidence that the provincial governments are vaguely uneasy about the bill. I should like to refer particularly to the reply from the province of Saskatchewan. With regard to a matter related to this subject the province of Saskatchewan has done something which I think hon. members should know about. When the agreement was finally reached at the conference at Quebec a year ago for the type of proposal we now have before us in the bill, the province of Saskatchewan requested that there also be a later conference on amending the constitution, and the provinces feel there is a relationship between the decisions made at the Quebec conference and the Charlottetown conference. I want to read to the house a most amazing resolution which appears in the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan. Notice of moving the resolution was given by the attorney general. I quote:
Hon. Mr. Heald. to move the following resolution:
That this assembly:
1. Expresses its approval of the draft of an act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada contained in a white paper entitled "an act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada'' and tabled in this assembly the 5th day of February, 1965.
Next is the important paragraph, and I recommend this to the consideration of the

Dominion-Provincial Relations Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) because it is for his benefit that I am speaking today.
2. Recommends to the government of Canada that the proposed act be submitted to a committee of the House of Commons for consideration and that such committee be directed to hold public hearings and report thereon to parliament;-
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? They are prepared in a general way to support the resolution but they are trying to tell the government of Canada that they are concerned. They set forth another alternative:
-or, alternatively, that the proposed act be submitted by the government of Canada to the Senate of Canada with a request that it be considered by a committee thereof appointed for such purposes and that the committee hold public hearings and report thereon to parliament.
Reading between the lines I think it is selfevident that here you have a new government in Saskatchewan which is Liberal by nomenclature but whose members are concerned as Canadians that we are getting onto a slippery slope that may be leading us into positions in which no person wants to be, as a good Canadian. I tie this up with what I am going to say because there are other statements by politicians which prove that there is a pattern developing and that the pattern is one of admittedly vague but deep uneasiness.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 3, 1964, almost a year ago. The writer is well known to the Minister of Finance and every supporter of the Liberal party in Canada. He is discussing the meeting in Quebec a year ago. I intend to quote only parts of the article but I am prepared to show any member the whole clipping. I quote it to give the house an idea of what was in the minds of people very close to the higher-ups of the Liberal party a year ago.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Who is this fellow?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I quote:
-the federal government last night received a glove across the chops from Premier Jean Lesage.
Mr. Lesage hardly bothered to express any pleasure over the distance that Ottawa and the other nine provinces had agreed to go-very reluctantly in most cases-to give Quebec the privilege of opting out of shared cost programs.
Then, he goes on to discuss various things and quotes Premier Robarts of Ontario, who said of the shared cost programs:
-there were none, at the moment, which Ontario was interested in opting out of.
The article continues:
Mr. Robarts wound up with a pointed reminder that the shared cost programs had been set up for the purpose of establishing national standards

across the country in certain important fields. "I don't think we should lose sight of that," he said.
The article also quotes the finance minister:
-Finance minister Walter Gordon drew attention to the great and growing responsibilities of their government, to its acute and growing financial needs.
So, here we have men at the provincial level very much concerned-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if the hon. member is going to tell us from whom he is quoting, Mr. Speaker?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The article is under the byline of Mr. Christopher Young, the editor of the Citizen, who was present at the conference.
I use these quotations, Mr. Speaker, as an illustration of the pattern that was contemplated a year ago which indicates there was a readiness to concede almost anything to bring about peace at that particular moment. Certainly, most of the provinces agreed reluctantly and certainly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), in that conference, put the best foot forward he could for the people of Canada by pointing out the needs facing the federal government in the years ahead.
This brings up the second point. What is the position of provincial governments at these dominion-provincial conferences? Naturally, every provincial premier or the respective minister dealing with any particular subject, must put up the best case he can for his province. He assumes, as a good Canadian, that the federal government will put up the best case it can for the federal government, for those citizens who are not only citizens of a province but citizens of the whole country. There is always a twofold interest on the part of the federal government. I should like to refer once again to what Premier Robarts said at the end of that conference. Admitting that these were matters of provincial jurisdiction in these shared cost programs, he went on to point out and emphasize that there was a place, a need, for the shared cost programs so the federal government could carry out its national function.
More recently, of course, we have seen an article, this time by a person I do not think is as well known to the federal Liberal party for his support, written by Charles Lynch. This article appeared in the Citizen for March 19 and the author stated some of the things about which I am concerned here. What is the place of a federal member in this house? Whom does he really represent, the region

from which he comes, the province or the whole country?
Now I am quoting:
The provincial premiers, who are empire builders by nature, can be expected to favour these new arrangements-but they cannot be expected to have the national interests at heart.
The place for the expression of national interests is in parliament-particularly a parliament where the federal government has only a minority mandate.
I continue to quote:
Another example of how the federal-provincial conference can intrude on parliament may be seen in the opting out legislation, under which provinces can withdraw from shared programs.
Some provinces will withdraw, and others will not. There will be a continuing federal involvement in some provinces, but not in others.
This means that parliament and the federal government will be involved in programs that operate in only part of the nation.
The question arises: Should members of parliament, and particularly cabinet ministers, who come from provinces that have opted out, have a voice in the administration of such programs in other parts of the country?
I went back in my files to find out what the attitude of the Quebec premier was a year ago. I admit immediately the change of attitude in one year by the Quebec premier has been tremendous. This is a transcript of a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program on the night of December 2, 1963. A question was asked by one of the questioners on the program, speaking about the French Canadian members in this house:
What, therefore, is the role of these 95-odd people which we elect to the federal government? What is the role and the function of the French Canadian ministers? Do they not represent the French Canadians as much as you do, sir?


Mr. Lesage:: No, they don't. Because of the reasons I gave you, that the people, the French speaking of Quebec since they have a majority in the provincial house, give more importance to the provincial government than they do to the federal-
I quote this statement, Mr. Speaker, as evidence of the fact that a year ago the ten provincial governments entered into this arrangement which we have before us now, not only reluctantly, but one of the premiers was under tremendous pressure from the extremist groups in his province. In order to help him relieve this tremendous pressure, the agreement was made which is the basis of this bill. I suggest now that a year has passed by and the pressure is no longer as great, the terror has disappeared, and a more rational approach can be taken. I think this rational approach should be put on the basis of a solid argument. I should like to ask
Dominion-Provincial Relations the house this question: Why are there shared cost programs?
First of all, before I enter that discussion, I may say I was somewhat surprised when the minister said upon introducing this bill that the demand for these shared cost programs is not so great now as it was. I should like to remind him of the views I have already quoted of Premier Robarts. I should like to remind him, too, that at this particular moment in Canada we are facing tremendous challenges to do certain things. Does this mean we are not going to be able to move in the field of medicare, for instance? I could give a list of things, and I intend later on to list a few other examples. The major purpose of these shared cost programs is to achieve national standards. To this end, I am going to remind the Minister of Finance, and I hope he supports me in this, that he has a tremendous task to meet the challenges put before the government by those that we select to keep us informed on monetary policies. I hold in my hand a copy of the Ottawa Journal for March 16, 1965 which contains the Canadian Press story concerning the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada. The headline is "Bottleneck Ahead?". If I may be permitted to quote four little paragraphs, I think my point can be made clear:
Canada must employ its resources more intensively and adapt them more readily to domestic and world needs in order to keep up its rate of expansion, Governor Louis Rasminsky of the Bank of Canada reported Monday.
I think we all agree with him.
We shall have to rely to an increasing extent on improving the adaptability of our growing resources in order to avoid serious bottleneck problems and price pressures...
The Canadian economy must do better (in foreign trade) than it has in the past. This means that we have to make continuous headway in achieving a greater penetration of export markets and in bettering our capacity to meet import competition.
To improve the competitiveness of the Canadian economy we have to aim at large improvements in our productivity and at a performance in respect of price and cost stability that compares favourably with that of our principal trading partners.
I have quoted four recommendations given in a Canadian Press dispatch describing part of what the governor of the Bank of Canada, as he is charged to do, has made available as a challenge to the Canadian people. How can these challenges be met? Can they be met by the provincial governments alone? Can they be met even by the federal government alone?

Dominion-Provincial Relations
There must be co-operation. There must be the federal government with the power of initiative to move into the provincial fields of jurisdiction in shared cost programs in order to maintain this initiative and meet these challenges.
Shared cost programs have four purposes. The first of these is minimum national standards. Over the last 15 years we have talked a great deal in this house about welfare programs. We are presently engaged in putting the Canada pension plan through parliament. On the horizon we have the medicare proposals of the Hall report, and I would suggest that even on the very delicate subject of education the people of Canada are looking to us. Here is a subject which is purely an unadulterated part of provincial jurisdiction. No party, no individual wants to touch the provincial control of education, the essence of education; yet you, Mr. Speaker, know and I know, that the financial problem of education must be met in Canada.
The province of Quebec has just received the Parent report outlining what is necessary in that province over the next few years. Can the province of Quebec alone carry that out?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A voice says yes. I ask you to look at that report. I am sure Canadians of good heart and good intent, without interfering in any degree whatsoever with the provincial government's right to control education, can find a formula that will help Quebec meet the recommendations in the Parent report.
Other provinces have similar reports and, Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that every province has asked the federal government to try to find ways and means, with them, to assist in this great national task. I do not think we are so poor in intelligence that we cannot find a formula without interfering with provincial control to help meet this tremendous national need which is the greatest challenge before us, namely that of education.
The second purpose of shared cost programs is equality of opportunity. Many times many hon. members have pointed out that in Quebec today 83 per cent of the farmers receive less than $2,000 net a year, that 87 per cent of the farmers in the maritimes receive less than $2,000 net a year and, according to the last census report, 13 per cent of the people living in built up areas have a net income of less than $2,000. Some

22 per cent of the people living in Montreal are in that category.
I ask the simple question, is this equality of opportunity? Is there not a need in the farm areas and in the poverty areas of our urban districts for co-operation between our two governments? Can any province, no matter how wealthy, meet this need without the co-operation of the federal government? This right of Canadians to equality of opportunity must be accepted in the year 1965.
The third purpose of shared cost programs is to achieve national aims. We have had the challenge by the governor of the Bank of Canada on productivity, export markets and development. Leave that be. I know, and everybody else knows, that no matter how willing a province is, no matter how much money a province may get, it cannot solve by itself these problems of productivity, export markets and development.
Then we come to the very serious problem of the ownership of Canada. Can any province, no matter how much money it has, or how willing it may be, solve this problem which is one that must unite everybody in Canada? Whether we speak English or French we have to preserve in Canada the opportunity to buy into the ownership of our resources and our means of production. This is the challenge of the future. It is not a question of English being opposed to French or French being opposed to English. We are all together on this one, and its solution is only possible by co-operation between the two levels of government. To meet these challenges there will have to be shared cost programs, and in many cases we may have to move into provincial jurisdiction, without in any way interfering with the right of a province to maintain itself in a particular field of jurisdiction.
The fourth purpose of shared cost programs is to meet national emergencies. I am not referring here to war and depression alone. But I well remember 30 years ago when the great reforms of the Bennett administration to meet the challenge of that depression were turned down by the courts on the grounds that they were not within federal jurisdiction.
We have to have shared cost programs to meet this kind of constitutional difficulty. Also, according to the governor of the Bank of Canada, we will have to meet an international balance of payments crisis probably in 1970. This problem can only be solved by co-operation between the two levels of government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to speak at a high speed in order to finish within my

allotted time. I would like to say a word about shared cost programs based on the experience I have had over the last number of years. First of all, if you accept the purposes of shared cost programs, that does not mean they are being carried out perfectly. I think provinces have a good case in trying to get some greater freedom in administrative control. I think provinces have a good case in trying to have more flexible financial control. Nothing is so conducive to slowing down progress than in having the treasury board here in Ottawa clear every single agreement and detail before you can start a program. Certainly changes have to be made in these shared cost programs, but more important than this is the fact that the provinces are now aware that there has to be some form of priorities established. Then there is the variable factor. Any money not spent in any one year on a designated program cannot be used by a province for another program. The question of priorities is vital and this is the heart of the reason behind the amendment we have moved.
I would like to see this parliament in the year 1965 finally grapple with the problem of need. Shared cost programs are not new. I have read the debates which took place in this chamber in 1911, and I found the minister of the interior of that day moving a proposal, as a member of the then government, for a roads to resources program based on the principle of need for the program. The principle of need is not only the fiscal ability of the province to perform; it is also the need for the program. Certain provinces with great areas to be opened up for the national good need more moneys than provinces with all their areas developed.
In 1911 the proposal passed this house but the bill was turned down in the Senate because it said it should be done on a formula basis, paying out so much per capita. Since then this question of need has not been faced frankly by any government, but it certainly came up in the roads to resources program when I was minister. I would hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) would agree with me and take time to study this question of shared cost programs to see if we cannot build on the question of priorities, to see if we cannot face up to some sort of acceptance by all political parties that the need for an over-all program on the shared cost programs is now mandatory if we are to achieve national ends.
I would like to see these positive things done. In self-defence I might say that we,
Dominion-Provincial Relations when we formed the Conservative government, did try. We put more money into the hands of the provinces in direct taxes, shared taxes and shared cost programs. Under ARDA we tried very hard to give administrative flexibility. I have the Hansard reports here which show very clearly that in drafting that legislation we tried to give that flexibility. We tried very hard under the Canadian council of resource ministers to give to the relationship between the provinces and the federal government a flexible, sophisticated type of financial control, of program control and of priorities which gave hope to the sincere people at every level in Canada that at long last we had got around the difficulties which had always existed between the federal government and the provincial governments.
We even moved a supply motion on cooperative federalism, pointing out that without any loss of provincial jurisdiction, without any giving away of federal jurisdiction, provinces and federal governments could get along using the techniques that I have mentioned. So I think there is a positive case for this amendment. I think there is a need for a rational, co-ordinated effort. Make the administration more flexible; give more financial flexibility to the provinces in these shared cost programs. Yes, examine priorities; and above all, look at the program based on the need of each province.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is responsible for the ARDA program, said a little while ago that $125 million would be given to the provinces over the next five years, and that he had an additional sum of $50 million. How much better it would be if, instead of saying, "Oh, I have the right to decide where the $50 million goes", he called in his officials and the council of resource ministers and said, "I would like to put this $50 million where it is needed the most. You and I know that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and, yes, even parts of Quebec and eastern Ontario have a much greater need; so we will take the $125 million and distribute it on a formula basis. But let us all agree that with regard to this $50 million some areas, even if they are offered a shared cost program cannot take part in it, and let us give that province 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent or 90 per cent so they can participate". I know right now provinces that want to do something; but 50 per cent, which the formula calls for, is not enough. But if the government gave them 75 per cent or 90 per cent, they would be able to par-

Dominion-Provincial Relations ticipate. These are Canadians and deserve equal opportunity. They deserve, also, minimum standards the same as those all across this country.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to make my point. I know that the government in the first 60 days of decision rushed here, rushed there and then had to come back and retreat, and confusion resulted. I also know that this bill was born in confusion, because it was born a year ago when the confusion was at its maximum. I am simply suggesting now that rather than continuing the policy of confusion which was at its height a year ago when the decision to come forward with this bill was made, we sit back and look at this whole question of so-called opting out and this question of the constitution. There is deep, deep uneasiness about this, and we would like to have a good, hard look at it. The logical way to take a look at it is in a co-ordinated fashion with all the provinces; not under the pressure of dynamite bombs in post office boxes, but all the provinces and the federal government considering this question as part of a procedure something that may be guiding us for a century to come.
There is no urgency now for this program; the pressure is over. We would like to see this amendment supported, (a) because shared cost programs are good, and (b) because if we are going to amend them, let us sit down and amend them in a constructive fahion, taking our time rather than pushing through this hastily considered, reluctantly agreed on decision and getting into one more mess of the type which has ruined this government so many times in the past.
I would like to ask the minister and the government what reason there is for this legislation. I say to the minister that the only reason I can see is that it is really a device to transfer to the provinces a federal tax percentage before the next federal-provincial fiscal conference meets. That is the only purpose of it. In my opinion Mr. Speaker this is poor bargaining ground. It is the wrong policy to give things away before you get to the bargaining table. I would like to see this house support the amendment which will provide for a co-ordinated rational approach to this question. If the house supports the amendment it will come out in support of shared cost programs in principle. This bill does nothing Mr. Speaker and if we can get rid of it and stop the spread of this vague uneasiness I think we will have served our purpose well. To my mind this amendment

does offer a rational co-ordinated approach that will tend to ease this vague and deep uneasiness that disturbs Canada.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) the New Democratic party intends to support the legislation now before the house. The bill itself while not unimportant does not warrant the tremendous fanfare with which it was greeted prior to its introduction. But the bill is important in that the principle that it raises forces us to consider in its passage the relationships which ought to exist between the federal government and our provinces and makes us give considerable thought to how we are going to work together as a dominion government with the provinces and how we are going to proceed with Canadian fiscal and monetary policy in the years ahead.
As has already been pointed out, the legislation deals with the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs which are at the present time largely administered by the provinces, with the federal government paying a large portion of the costs of the programs. These agreements cover a wide variety of activities, including old age assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance, projects under the Technical and Vocational Training Act, health grants, hospital construction grants, certain forestry programs and camp recreational programs. The legislation merely provides that any province, if it so desires, may now take over sole responsibility for the fields covered by these contracts and may receive the money in the form of tax abatements instead of the form in which it has previously received the money. So that in essence nothing very much is changed. For that reason we can see little merit in the amendment proposed by the official opposition, since the legislation does not change the amount of money being allocated but merely changes the source from which it comes. It is therefore very important, when considering this legislation, to emphasize that what is really involved is merely a change in the method of compensation to any province which exercises its option under the terms of the legislation.
As has been said, the programs under the legislation continue in force until 1968 and 1970 and any province that is taking its option must assume responsibility for the programs and continue to carry them out, even though it is getting its money in a

different way. What we are really doing, it seems to me, is buying time, because these programs will all lapse at the end of the statutory period, the tax abatement will cease and the jurisdiction will come back to the federal government, unless in the interval some new formula is devised for handling the fields covered by these agreements.
It has already been said that this particular type of legislation constitutes a serious weakening of the powers of the federal government and a strengthening of the provincial powers at the expense of the central government, and it is argued that the net result of this legislation will be stronger provincial governments and a weaker federal government which will be unable to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. If this were true there might be cause for alarm in passing this bill, but from a close examination of the bill, the fields covered by it, the amount and value of the funds involved and the nature of the tax fields being assigned, it seems to indicate that such is not the case.
Moreover, I should like to suggest that those who take this view have really not only misunderstood the legislation but also closed their eyes to some very hard facts of economic and fiscal life which have overtaken us here in Canada. Over the past ten years certain pronounced trends have been at work which have now suddenly become apparent to all of us. We have reached the point in Canada where the municipalities and provinces are taxing more and are spending more than the federal government. These municipal and provincial revenues and expenditures are going to grow at an even faster rate because they cover areas which are accelerating in their expansive qualities. Also, if you analyse our federal budget you will find that a good deal of it is fixed in its expenditures and that the size of our expenditures no longer really constitutes an effective method of control. On the other hand, in our provinces 20 per cent of provincial expenditures are in the capital area, and these can be varied with great ease and flexibility. These facts give us certain basic lessons and there are conclusions we can draw from them.
I think it is important for us to point out, first that the size and range of municipal and provincial taxing and spending means that in Canada we will probably never again see the day when the federal government can operate in its sole majesty to control fiscal and monetary investment policies.
Second, it means that we have reached a point in Canada where we shall have to work
Dominion-Provincial Relations in closer co-operation with the provinces if fiscal policy is to be effected-because they can exert almost as strong an influence on this field as the federal government.
Third, these provincial and municipal expenditures are going to grow more rapidly, and therefore I think we have to reconcile ourselves to joint provincial-federal action in the fields of investment policy and economic planning.
Fourth, the real problem that faces this government and this house, and as a matter of fact, the country, is to try to devise some means by which federal-provincial fiscal power can be co-ordinated. This is the great task that I think faces the minister, and it is an area in which the minister has to take a very, very strong initiative. Because if he does not, the provinces are, as I have said, capable of influencing economic policy just as much as he is; and if he does not take a strong initiative to bring about co-ordination and co-operation between the provinces and the federal government they will all end up going their separate ways, with a resulting lack of co-ordination.
That is the real danger, it seems to me, in the present bill

not that we are turning over certain responsibilities to the provinces, but that we are failing to use the freedom from administrative responsibility that this gives us to take new and bold initiatives in other areas of activity. What we are really doing in the bill is telling the provinces to go their own ways in these respective fields. Unless we compensate for that by new initiatives, we are giving away more and more of the financial leverage that we have had in the past to exercise control over the Canadian economy.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the period between now and the running out of these agreements, some in 1968 and some in 1970, we will have an opportunity to devise a new formula under which federal and provincial fiscal and monetary investment policies can be co-ordinated, and so that each is working as much as possible in harmony with the other. As I have said, to us the bill before us is not a very striking document and does not excite us to any great degree. It is obvious that the government has only three choices in the fields concerned: it can transfer them back to itself, or have the provinces do so; it can give them money; or it can give the provinces a share of certain tax fields to carry out the responsibility.
The first of such alternatives is an impractical one and it seems on balance it is probably just as well to assign certain taxes,

Dominion-Provincial Relations as long as the government does not give up the wrong tax fields and provided it does not carry the policy or trend to the point where the over-all financial ability of the government to direct economic and fiscal matters is impeded.
As I said earlier, the bill is of interest to us because it forces us to give consideration to the whole problem of Canadian unity, in its economic sense certainly, and what our approach is going to be to this essential problem. I am not one who thinks that the problems of our Canadian unity can be solved by the approach either of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party, although they both hold their views from a sense of conviction. It seems to me that you cannot get unity under the cry of one Canada, because this cry will eventually become an anti-Quebec sentiment. That is because it completely ignores the hopes and aspirations of that province, which in many ways are unique, as against those of the other provinces. In this direction lies a continually growing apart and a furtherance of disunity.
Nor can unity come in Canada by the policy of the present government. It poses as the party of national unity because it has a unique ability, which only it possesses, to reach an accommodation with Quebec which will keep her in confederation, and hold the country together. This, it seems to me, again is a limited and weak approach which in the long run will prove unsuccessful, because it is essentially sterile and piecemeal and fails to get at the real problems facing Canada, many of which are economic in nature.
In his speech the other day, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), leading off for our party, pointed out that in his judgment it was essential that the present government, having relinquished these powers to the provinces in these fields, embark upon new and fresh initiatives of its own, and that as long as this expansionary view was followed there was no real danger of interfering with the function, strength and ability of the central government. In his speech he dealt with the external initiatives that he would like to suggest to the government, and discussed foreign aid and other matters. I wanted in my presentation of the views of this party to mention briefly the domestic scene and some of the domestic initiatives that we would like to see this government undertake.
I think the first one that we would suggest is this, that if you are really going to build unity in Canada you are going to be successful in

so doing only if the federal government is prepared to give a very strong sense of leadership and direction to the Canadian people. This we have not received from this government in its years in office. By "leadership" we do not mean in a personal sense as centred upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). By leadership we mean a conscious setting before the public of national goals, of national objectives, and a sense of national purpose and direction. Unless the government is prepared to do this and to create an expanding, prosperous economy as a whole, an economy under which the provinces will have the ability and the resources to pursue their own responsibilities, an umbrella under which all the provinces can work with the federal government toward agreed national objectives, we do not really see how you are going to bring about the unity of purpose of this country.
What do we mean by goals and objectives? I think first of all that this government has to make a statement of policy on its attitude to the report of the economic council of Canada.
That council in its report set out a whole range of potentials for the Canadian economy to 1970, and they are very challenging potentials. We have had no statement from the government as to whether it accepts the report or whether it accepts the objectives set out in the report. We have had no statement as to its policy and plans for progressive moves to achieve these objectives.
Anyone who has read the report will be impressed certainly with the statistical information that it contains. It sets out a very impressive set of things we have to achieve, if we are going to retain economic stability. It refers, for example, to one and a half million new jobs by 1970, but it is quite silent about any ideas as to how to attain that position. It refers to the necessity for a continually rising gross national product, ever and ever increasing foreign exports and the holding of prices in line-and that is one of the reasons we have raised price questions in the house, asking the government to do something about that objective of the economic council-but it does not suggest any means of attaining these goals.
Mr. Speaker, the main thing about the economic council, and this is why we must have some statement from the minister, is that the report itself is a banquet of ideas but a famine of suggestions. It tells us of the marvellous things that have to be achieved, but it is very conveniently silent about any

ideas as to how these things are to be brought about.
In short, nothing that the council wants to happen will happen unless this government takes the necessary action to bring them about. If we are going to get any sort of leadership, any sort of national direction or any sort of national purpose, then this government has to come forward and tell us and the people of Canada where it stands on this economic council report and how it intends to chart the course that Canada will follow between now and 1970. Such a decision would go a long way to clearing the air in Canada and toward giving us some idea where this government is trying to take us in respect of these initiatives which we would like to see them take.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), we would like to see some initiative taken on the whole question of a national medicare program. What is the government going to do about the whole report? There has been a great gulf of silence since the report came out. The medicare idea involves another area of federal leadership and federal initiative, and we want to know what the government intends to do.
Third, we should like to see the government take the initiative in respect of a second trans-Canada highway program. It might have to include some opting-out provisions for one or two of the provinces, but again this provides a golden opportunity for the government to launch itself into this field of activity.
We would like also to see the establishment of a national power grid which is long overdue in this country, but which has been talked about vacuously by successive governments.
I would strongly appeal to the Minister of Finance to resurrect the course of the Canada development corporation. This was the great arch of his first budget. This was the organization that was going to cure the problems of foreign control, enabling Canadians to invest in our own developments. This was going to provide the development capital that this country needs from internal sources. Of course it has gone up in a puff of smoke, and we have heard nothing more about it.
We are a little disappointed with the minister. He is such a nice person we expected more of him and find it difficult to become angry with him. In this area he has sorely disappointed us. Many of us still look back with a bit of excitement to his first budget because, even though it turned out to be a
Dominion-Provincial Relations fiasco, we felt that he was embarking on some imaginative schemes in an attempt to grapple with some of the problems facing this country. The minister whispers under his breath: Wait until the next budget. We will wait, with the hope that it will show more imagination of an expansive nature than the last one.
The minister should consider the method used for operating these corporations in France. Just the other day the head of the French trust was in Quebec advising Premier Lesage and his government how to handle the investment funds which will be available to them under the pension plan, when it is in operation. He outlined the very great contribution that investment trust makes in France. It has assets of $14 billion which it makes available for business expansion and economic development throughout the country. This has had a profound effect upon the whole system of economic planning in France and has proven very popular.
We should like the minister to get up and tell us before this debate ends what he intends to do about the Canada development corporation, and tell us when its corpse is going to appear in some live form.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we feel that great initiative can be taken in the whole field of housing and urban development. Something has been done about this by parliament, but the whole field still awaits attention because of the running down of our cities and the need for rejuvenation, and I refer particularly to the old, gigantic urban centres in Canada. Very little attention has been paid to this very important and urgent need. We must solve the problem of financing our housing programs so that we may supply the capital for housing expansion. This has usually been treated as a tap which is turned off when things are good and turned on when things are bad. This program has never been correlated into a proper housing program.
Finally, the initiative we would strongly urge upon the government is that initiative which would undertake a national Canadian manpower policy. This would do more than anything else to grapple with the problems of trade adjustment and the rationalization of our economy in a technological revolution. This would do more to solve these problems from the point of view of developing this country than almost anything else that could be undertaken. You cannot really say that you have a policy, because your own economic council has shot it down in flames in its report. It is very clear that your manpower policy in Canada is a joke.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
I do not intend to go on because this is beginning to sound like a speech in the debate on the speech from the throne, but I have been trying to indicate to the government that, as it lets the provinces get into some of these fields which it has occupied, it is absolutely essential, if it is going to maintain any sort of direction or give any leadership, or if it is going to have any idea of where it is taking this country in the years ahead, that it embark upon initiatives of this kind. I could go on and name many more, but those are a few which we would urge upon this government, and in respect of which we would ask them to provide leadership of the type needed to create and sustain a growing and expanding economy. As I said, this would create an umbrella under which all the provinces would find greater opportunities to expand and carry out their responsibilities.
Here in Canada we have been sorely disappointed with this government, which came into office with plans to excite the daring, because it has never really got off the ground. We hope that in the years ahead, if this parliament should last so long, the government will regroup itself and will forget about the fiasco of its two years in office. We hope that in the next budget it will take a fresh start in respect of the problems which face Canada and will begin to give the leadership that this country needs. We hope that it will begin to give to this country that which it needs more than anything else, a sense of national purpose and direction.


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Reid Scott: Yes.


John James Greene: I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech and found a great deal of it interesting. I take it that the hon. member approves in principle of Bill C-142, because he stated that he feels the provinces should have these powers to which they are entitled under the constitution, and the fiscal authority to carry them out. Would he then not agree that in respect of Bill C-142 now before the house, which he has stated he agrees with in principle, the government has given just the kind of leadership and direction which is required and which the hon. member feels is necessary?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was flattered at first when the hon. member said he had been listening very closely to my speech, but he could not have been listening very closely.

My first sentence was to the effect that we were going to support the bill and accept the program envisaged. However, as to the second part of his question, regarding the fact that by bringing this bill in the government has somehow given magnificent leadership, I can only ask the hon. member to please refrain from insulting me by making such asinine remarks. The very idea is the reverse, that you are giving away powers to the provinces-which is perfectly all right; but unless you move into the vacuum you thereby create and take greater initiatives that we have suggested, you are failing in your essential function as a federal government.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member not agree-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: Will the hon. member answer another question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member hear a further question and answer it?


Reid Scott: I will at least hear it.


John James Greene: I would ask the hon. member if he agrees that the necessary constitutional trend is to return to the constitution and to give the provinces the fiscal authorities and powers they need to carry out their obligations under the constitution? As I take it, the hon. member's party would like to have it both ways. He would like to do this and at the same time have new powers vested in the federal government. Is that a correct statement of his party's view?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better read the speech.


Reid Scott: I do not know how to get over to the hon. member the point we are trying to make. We are not suggesting that the federal government needs new powers. All we are suggesting is that you should get up on your hind feet and begin to use the powers you already have in order to take strong initiatives, that instead of hiding behind the constitution and doing nothing you should begin to use the powers you now have, to give some direction and leadership to the country.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it was very enlightening to listen to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) this afternoon because I consider that both of them made valuable contributions to the debate on Bill No. C-142 and gave the

government some reasons why they should consider very seriously the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I believe also that the hon. member for Danforth is entitled to a good deal of sympathy, for he certainly has, in view of the government's performance over the past two years, a far too optimistic outlook with regard to the ability of the government to perform in the manner in which he would like to see them perform. Certainly the appreciation of the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) of what the hon. member for Danforth said, and his comments thereon, would not indicate, if he is an example of the appreciation of Liberal members of what was being said, that there is going to be any kind of substantial change in the type of performance the government is going to produce for the Canadian people in the future.
I do not disagree with the hon. member for Danforth in his assessment of the bill as such. Certainly it is an indication of the return to the provinces of certain programs which fall within their jurisdiction. However, what concerns me to a very substantial degree is not what is contained in the bill but what will follow the bill if it is adopted by the house.
In my opinion it is absolutely necessary that this country have a strong federal government, and from my knowledge of the philosophy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), as outlined in various publications in the past, I have always considered that to be his philosophy as well. But there have been strange happenings with regard to both the philosophy of the Minister of Finance and of the government since they assumed a role where they have had something to do with the running of the country.
While I can understand the provincial governments being quite willing to adopt and agree to the plans proposed in the bill, I find as a federal member that I must be hesitant and wary about what may follow bills of this type, for they have inherent in them great dangers to the federal system as we know it today. In view of the fact that most of the programs are close to running out, surely there must be some reason other than the bill for the government to ask members of the house to consider a bill of this type. Most of the programs will end either in 1967 or 1970. Therefore, what is the great concern to get out of these programs today?
Certainly the provinces are not going to gain anything very significant by contracting out of these programs when they only have
Dominion-Provincial Relations such a short period of time to run. This being the case, there must be something else involved in the presentation of the bill at this time than is indicated by the contracting out arrangement in the bill and the minister's statement in this regard. If this is the case, we should be told what else the government anticipates doing in this field and what it is going to cost us as Canadians from a federal point of view both in tax dollars and in power.
Coming from the province of Nova Scotia I must work for and assist in the maintenance of a strong federal government. It is absolutely necessary that we have such a government, for we look upon it to provide us with the minimum standards that we must have if we are to survive. Nova Scotians have long memories about the kind of attention that has been given to our provinces by past Liberal administrations from the point of view of providing our people with the minimum standards we require. Anyone in Nova Scotia can tell you about the 22 years of Liberal rule in Ottawa, and at Halifax and they can tell you of how little we derived in the way of benefits for our people during that period of time.
Indeed, they can tell you of the many trips that were made to Ottawa by the late Angus L. Macdonald, and the frustration of this Liberal premier on those trips time after time. They can tell you also of the various substantial changes in philosophy when the Diefenbaker administration was elected to office. They can tell you of the Atlantic development grants and what those grants meant in the way of providing better services for our people. They can tell you of the fact that $100 million was made available under these grants for a period of four years from 1958, and of how these grants were increased to $150 million over a five year period in 1962. They can tell you of the establishment of the Atlantic development board, and what this board has meant, even in its amended form, for our area, in providing those necessary things that will give to our people a better chance in the future.
We are concerned here, Mr. Speaker, and we are concerned every day with the problems facing provincial governments. We are told how badly they need money to carry out the programs which they desire to provide for the people of the various provinces of this nation. Well, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the special Atlantic grants of which I have just spoken, let me point out to you that in

Dominion-Provincial Relations 1956-57, when the provinces of this nation received $689 million, we watched the continual consideration of these problems until the amount that was being made available to the provinces of this nation from the federal treasury increased to $1.8 billion in 1962-63. This $1.8 billion has been further increased since this government took office. There is, and there always will be on all governments, pressing need for financial resources. I think it would be fair to say that the provinces have been looked after well in the past six or seven years, and that we can go far too fast in giving away our financial resources. Indeed we can reach the point where the federal government becomes nothing more than the tax collector for provincial governments. Certainly, I do not intend to stand here and support legislation that is going to put the federal government in that position.
There are some who will say, how can you find anything to be concerned about in this legislation, in view of the fact the premier of your province has agreed to it? Well, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in this position: I find myself reading of these secret conferences that go on between the provinces and the federal government and I learn from the results that it is almost always a one way street, that the federal diplomacy that is being provided today is for the federal government to give anything to the provinces for which they ask. The end result is depreciation in the federal government's control of the monetary system. While it might not be of any great concern to the federal government to have its monetary control weakened in good times, it is a very serious matter in times of difficulty. No government knows better than the government which was formed by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, and no man knows better than the former minister of finance, the present member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), what they were faced with in 1957, in grappling with the problems of this country which was facing a serious depression. They returned the economy to a buoyant position. No government did a better job or produced the necessary results in a shorter period of time than did that government.
What do we have today? We have a government that produces a piece of legislation which appears to me to be an example of the provinces trying to get their foot in the door-in the door of a week-kneed government which in two years has produced nothing

but ineptitude, stumbling and bumbling to a degree that no one could have imagined in 1963 when it was elected to office. This is a government of big words and small deeds, a government that talks in platitudes and produces nothing. Why would any member from an area such as the maritime provinces not be concerned about legislation like this, with a government such as we have in office today? Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, of why I am concerned today. Let me apply some very useful statistics to the situation of agriculture in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is now going rather far afield. He says that he wants to give examples of legislation like this, but I feel he must address himself at the moment to this particular legislation. Certainly there has to to be some leeway in discussing the second reading of a bill. However, discussion should be restricted to the principle itself.


Robert Carman Coates: The reason I am adopting this approach, Mr. Speaker, is that in my opinion the principle of this legislation indicates a weakening in the monetary control of the federal government over all resources in this country. If this monetary control is weakened and certain situations develop, the the country could very seriously be impaired in its efforts to revive the economy. All I am endeavouring to do now is to point out those areas of weakness in the economy which need a substantial degree of attention from the federal government. I cannot see how it would be out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So long as the hon. member refers what he is about to say to an act respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs, he will be in order.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I started out to say that the agricultural situation in Nova Scotia indicates that the cash income for the year dropped by some $2 million, as compared with that for the year 1963.
An editorial in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner of March 18, under the heading "Bad News", stated:
The mid-February employment report contained bad news for the Atlantic region. Unemployment stood at 13 per cent, a jump of 2.2 per cent from the figure of a month earlier. The most disconcerting about these figures is that they do not follow the trend of the rest of the nation, in which unemployment dropped from 5.5 to 5.2 per cent between January and February.

The editorial concludes by saying:
So we have this veritable army of the unemployed, who, with their families must be sustained by various forms of relief and social assistance.
The shame and folly of this situation should spur everyone concerned to a sustained effort to end this situation of regional inequality once and for all.
This is a situation which demands concerted action by the federal government. It is a regional problem but can be as serious as a national problem. Special policies must be produced on the federal level to see that this problem is eliminated. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said there was a special fund of $50 million available under ARDA which he considered, and which I also consider should be directed to areas such as those in the province of Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally, where this type of assistance is not readily available. The legislation demands a degree of contribution from the provincial government that makes it impossible for the province to participate.
There is little value in offering a man $100,000 to solve the problem facing him if he at the same time must provide $100,000, and he does not have a single one of those hundred thousand dollars in his pocket. We must look at the situation to determine the degree of need, and if necessary provide assistance at a level of 90 per cent or 100 per cent.
This is the kind of leadership which the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) spoke about. Yet a short while ago when I asked the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) about his plans in this regard he replied, "Oh, I cannot do anything. This is a provincial matter, provincial in character, and must be initiated on the provincial level." We will not And leadership in that type of statement.
This legislation is not very significant by itself. I would not be the least alarmed if we had been told this was a one-shot deal and the problem would be solved without the need for further legislation. But we are not told that. Indeed we are told very little, and one can quickly arrive at the conclusion that following this legislation we can anticipate other legislation of a similar nature.
If that is the case then the principle involved in the legislation is dangerous for the future of the nation. It is dangerous to provinces such as Nova Scotia. It is dangerous to the maintenance of a strong federal government. It is legislation we could do without especially in view of the short term remaining in many of these programs.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I hope the minister will take the sound advice contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that he will develop this type of conference determine the priorities and thus give Canadians some idea what we are looking for in the way of financing on a national and provincial scale. Let us see how much money we have and whether we are spending it properly. I urge the minister to produce the type of leadership spoken of by the hon. member for Danforth but which has not been very evident on the treasury benches in this parliament.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member terminated his remarks or does he want to continue?


Robert Carman Coates: I have finished.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to advise the house that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock: the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey)-industry-study of U.S. encroachment of Canadian economy; the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe)-Canadian citizenship-amendment of act to ensure religious freedom; the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) - highways-request for federal assistance.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-142 which we are now

Dominion-Provincial Relations considering has become better known as the opting-out bill because, as we have been given to understand it, it is intended to permit a province to step out of shared cost programs with the federal government in return for financial compensation, either from an equalized abatement of federal income tax or a cash payment, depending upon the nature of the program involved.
The amendment that we have before us suggests that this bill should be set aside for six months. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) owes it to the house at this particular stage to clarify what the bill is actually intended to do. He made certain statements at the beginning of this debate on second reading, but as far as we are concerned the minister was far from clear on a number of points. Just briefly to review what the minister said, Mr. Speaker, and the background of the bill, when speaking on second reading the minister stated that by means of this bill it is intended that a province which contracts out shall be neither worse off nor better off than a province which does not contract out. Therefore I assume from this statement that the purpose of the bill is to provide a face-saving device to the provinces which choose to better indicate that they are masters in their own house and opt out. In my observation, as far as the bill is concerned, I fail to find any other intent stated as to its purpose, unless some confidential arrangements have already been made with some of the provinces which have expressed their intention to opt out. I hope this is not true.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would not want to give an impression that was incorrect. I can assure him that no such intimations, suggestions or arrangements have been made.


Robert Norman Thompson: While I appreciate very much those words from the minister, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, in view of what he has said, namely that there is no other intention than to provide an opting-out facility for those provinces which intend to do so, without any effect on the privileges or arrangements which have already been made, I find it rather difficult to assume this from the remarks he has made or from some of the things that are stated in the bill. For this reason I believe that the minister needs to clarify a number of points while we are still on this debate, as far as the amendment is concerned.
Curiously enough, the opting out program was a Conservative invention or innovation.
[Mr. Thompson.)

It was necessitated by an impasse that had been reached between the former Liberal government and the Premier Duplessis administration in the province of Quebec concerning the non-acceptance of direct federal grants for Quebec universities. If we look back at the records as far as this situation was concerned, we find that it was the former minister of finance in the Conservative administration, Mr. Donald Fleming, and the late Premier Sauve of the province of Quebec who devised the opting out formula as a solution to that particular problem. Under this arrangement the Quebec provincial government paid these grants to the universities concerned directly, and in return received an equal share of the federal income tax to compensate.
It seems to me, from what the minister said the other day, that this is actually what he intends this bill to do, and that there is not really anything new in it-nothing more and nothing less, as he said. However, in view of this I find it difficult to understand some of the wording in the bill because of the confusion that exists about it, which has been mentioned by those who have spoken previously in the debate. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I find the very complex verbiage that is contained within the bill somewhat difficult to understand and to reconcile with what the minister has already said. What it does, it seems to me, is confuse the issue. Because it does this, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions that become obvious and which I would very sincerely request the minister to answer while we are still considering the amendment that is before us.
What happens to those provinces that do opt out and then perhaps bring in new arrangements in their own programs after they have opted out? This is not at all difficult to visualize. It could apply to the hospital insurance program. A certain province may change the particular program that they have at the present time because they wish to expand their services or think there are better ways of fulfilling their own responsibilities in the hospital insurance field. There is nothing in this legislation to indicate what will happen to those provinces that do this. Therefore I ask the minister, what will happen to those provinces which do opt out, in these circumstances? On the other hand we might ask the question, what about those who do not choose to opt out? Are they going to receive increased benefits in the future that will not be passed on to those which have

opted out? This is a very serious situation, because actually we are dealing with income that happens to be collected by the federal government because the federal government has taken unto itself the responsibility for certain programs which traditionally, and according to the British North America Act, belong within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It seems to me it is not at all clear in this bill whether in the future benefits might be passed on to those who do not opt out which are not available to those who do.
Likewise, for those who do there may well be an extension of those programs which are still completely under their jurisdiction, and as I understand, and because of that they may be denied the extension of the present arrangements which are in existence and which may not be allowed for in this new arrangement. Perhaps the minister does not intend to alter any of these existing arrangements. Perhaps this is only a means of collecting money for these shared programs in a different way from which it is now being collected.
In his remarks the other day the minister mentioned that the tax structure committee which is to be studying the problem of shared taxation as it relates to the provincial and federal governments will have to wait for the results of the royal commission on taxation. Once that has been studied and a new direction is set, then the federal-provincial governments can come together and work out a new program altogether. Under the arrangement now permitted under the act, 321, what will happen to a province that has opted out once this takes place? These are all very important questions, Mr. Speaker, to which in the overall explanation contained in the bill itself we do not find clear and distinct answers. We do have the minister's statements, but I certainly do not think this is sufficient to clarify the matter at all. This is why I find myself very confused, not only from reading his statement but in reading the excessive verbiage contained in the bill. That is why my request to the Minister of Finance is that he must give some clarification.
Let us take, for example, a province which does choose to extend a program presently in existence and the province has opted out prior to the new program being introduced. As I read the bill, I am much concerned that the whole set-up is far too rigid. It lacks flexibility, and clause 3(2) makes this very clear. Owing to the rigidity of the wording of the bill it is difficult to understand whether any of the flexibility presently available to
Dominion-Provincial Relations a province in working out its own program or administration can be extended. So I would say it is very necessary to clarify the whole situation.
The present agreement requires that if the federal government is going to change, shall we say, their hospitalization program at the end of the present ten year period, which expires in 1970, the federal government is required to give one year's notice of those changes, I believe-that is, in 19S9. I believe this also applies conversely to the provinces. However, does this situation with a province which has opted out still stand? Or in the rigidity of this bill is this possibility no longer there? I know there are a number of provinces very concerned about this and the government has not made it clear, unless, as I said at the outset, the minister means to provide only a different way for the provinces who do opt out of collecting the money that is legitimately theirs under the shared program arrangement.
Another point with regard to clause 3-this may also apply specifically to clause 2, but it certainly applies to the whole of clause 3- is that a supplementary agreement will have to be signed between the provincial and federal governments if a province is to opt out. Some of the provincial legislatures which are now in session are considering opting out of at least some of the programs, but are not going to be able to pass the legislation at this particular session to provide for that and for their own authority. I am referring in this particular situation to tax abatement. Supposing this new arrangement passes this house and comes into effect on the first of the year, 1966, how are these provinces going to provide for this without calling a special session for the purpose?
Further in this regard I would ask the minister whether or not any of these agreements which will have to be made as he has already outlined have already been drafted or work done on them. I refer to draft agreements. Certainly this is something which is very important. If the provinces are going to opt out there will need to be negotiations between the provinces and the federal government regarding the agreements necessary for this. As the bill reads now it seems to me that the only change to be made is in the method of collecting the money as far as the provinces are concerned; but this is not clear. Particularly is this so with agreements which will be necessary between the federal government and every single one of the provincial governments. So, Mr. Speaker, again

Dominion-Provincial Relations I would emphasize to the government that the obvious lack of flexibility, to my understanding of the bill, is a matter of much concern to a number of the provinces, and this is something which must be clarified.
The Minister of Finance has said that the door is open to anyone who wants to pass through this door into these opting out arrangements. But once they have passed through the door, what is inside the room? We are told that the room inside is exactly the same as it is outside before entering through the door. These are the minister's words; but certainly under the bill this is not specified at all. Again I would say to the minister that if he intends only to change the method of collecting the money as far as the provincial share is concerned to cover these programs, then perhaps there is nothing to be concerned about at all; but we cannot take these things for granted. There must be an explanation in this regard.
We are dealing here with a problem that greatly concerns provincial jurisdiction so far as our constitution is concerned. After adjourning the debate at six o'clock I looked up the British North America Act again, and from that act it is clear that the establishment and the management of hospitals, asylums, etc., are the responsibility of the provincial governments. In the same position is the whole field of education. Most of these shared programs, at least the important ones, are concerned with these two areas. Having invaded the field of provincial jurisdiction the federal government has likewise to invade the field of provincial tax sources.
Practically speaking, there is only one taxpayer in Canada and one tax dollar, and that is the tax dollar paid by John Canuck to governments. Our problem is how to divide this tax among the different levels of government in order to pay for those services incumbent upon those different levels of government. What is actually happening in respect of this problem which we are discussing is that the federal government is simply returning to the provincial governments that money which rightfully belongs to them in order that they may pay for the services which they must provide under the provisions of the British North America Act. Therefore we are really dealing with money that belongs to the provincial governments, but which has been collected by the federal government which in turn has usurped the functions of provincial governments, and therefore must provide some of


the services. This is the situation which has resulted in shared programs.
If the federal government now intends to get out of these shared programs, as this opting-out legislation would indicate, it seems to me the first responsibility of the federal government is to make sure that the related tax money is available to the provinces. So far as the minister's remarks are concerned, that is the only thing with which this method of payment is associated.
I would emphasize again that we cannot take this for granted, once this legislation has been passed, unless adequate answers and explanations have been given to the questions raised so as to remove any doubt about the situation which I have been endeavouring to express. We must be sure that the provincial governments are going to be in a different position. The minister must clarify these things. If he cannot, I suggest we are justified in putting aside this legislation-unless it is intended to leave existing arangements as they are. If federal arrangements in this regard are to be left as they now exist, then the only question to be answered is, how does the federal government intend to return money which rightfully belongs to the provinces. Therefore, before this amendment is voted on, the minister should provide some answers to these questions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that comes to my mind with respect to Bill No. C-142 concerning the withdrawal from certain joint programs at the request of a province, is that the federal finance and national revenue departments will fortunately take less money from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.
I am glad that the total budget of the Department of Finance will be reduced by that amount. And I am glad for this reason: the Department of Finance obviously does not know how to spend the money it collects from the Canadian taxpayers.
One of the remarks I made to myself when I examined the estimates tabled today is that it will cost $82,299,500 in salaries alone, or $82,300,000, to pay the income tax inspectors and officials, that is to say the employees who empty the citizens' pockets.
Therefore, I tell myself that if the federal government takes less, the Department of National Revenue will need fewer employees and on this item of $82,300,000 alone the Minister of Finance will realize quite a sav-

ing. Let us hope that by reducing the staff of the income tax office, since the federal government will collect less money, the Minister of Finance will make a saving there.
When I examine the estimates which were tabled today and compare them with the various joint programs-those that Quebec at least will opt out of-I can only conclude that it will be a good thing for Quebec because the federal government never learned or at least never had enough imagination to learn how to spend the taxpayers' money.
For instance, for the class which is, at this time, the most handicapped, the most depressed, the most mistreated by our governments, that is the agricultural class, I find that the total expenditures of the federal government during the year will amount to $121 million, while the budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reaches the record figure of $99,444,000, a difference of only $20 million; $121 million for agriculture and $100 million for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is therefore easy to conclude that the Department of Finance does not take priorities into account. That is why I am happy to see that more money will be taken from the federal Department of Finance, because it does not know how to manage the taxpayers' money.
When you read, for instance, that the Department of External Affairs will be spending the sum of $133 million during the year, that is $12 million more than for agriculture, it is easy to see that the Department of Finance does not know how to allocate proper amounts to the various departments.
In the field of labour, for example, where last year you had a sum of $186 million, we find that this year only $150 million is to be spent. If there is an important department, it is the Department of Labour. When you look at the unemployment situation and the number of jobless people, you know how important the Department of Labour is if we want to try and find work for our Canadian citizens. But no, its estimates are being cut.
So, what does my heart the most good is to realize that the Minister of Finance, who does not know how to spend the taxpayers' money, will have less to look after, so that the evil will be less great. I am not saying it will disappear, but it will be smaller.
Mr. Speaker, another reason why I support the opting out formula under which a province may withdraw from joint programs- and it is said that many provinces wish to so withdraw-is that all those shared pro-20220-801
Dominion-Provincial Relations grams are administered by both the federal and provincial governments and, consequently, for the whole of Canada, there is a duplication of administrative services and you have two systems and twice as many employees, some in Ottawa and others in the provincial governments, in the fields of administration, accountancy, audit and inspection.
Therefore, it costs twice as much as if the administration and operation of the joint programs came under a single administration. Furthermore, because of this dual administration, decisions concerning joint programs will be delayed considerably; for instance, should a municipality decide to undertake winter works programs, it will have to apply to the provincial government, then after the provincial government makes some inspections and inquiries, etc., and approves the programs, the whole matter is referred to the federal government which makes its own inspections and inquiries and this takes twice as much time.
It takes twice the amount of time required to reach a decision when you have two administrations, one provincial and the other federal, while the provincial administration would be able to make its own decisions.
This, therefore, slows down the grants for winter works to the municipalities and it costs twice as much as a result of an overlapping system of bureaucracy. In addition to delaying the decisions, we realize that often there is disagreement between the decisions of the federal and provincial authorities.
I have seen, in my riding of Lapointe, the federal government decide in favour of a municipality with regard to winter works; later on, the provincial authorities would decide otherwise so that the municipality had to wait for two or two and a half years before getting its grant. On other occasions, the federal authorities refuse to make a decision so that the municipalities do not know where they stand, they are always on a tight rope. This situation works hardship on the municipalities, because some decisions are delayed and here again the municipalities, the workers and the unemployed are the first to suffer therefrom.
That is why I say that those joint programs with their dual authority, a dual bureaucratic system of auditing and inspection, double expenditures, a double system of management, are a disastrous invention for the administration and the taxpayers. It cost them money and resulted in the provinces being deprived of a great part of their auton-

Dominion-Provincial Relations omy. This system has given no positive results, except delayed decisions where the two authorities concerned are often at cross purpose.
Mr. Speaker, the best thing the federal government could do with regard to opting out arrangements would be to hand back to the provinces, in no uncertain way, and undoubtedly to the province of Quebec, sources of revenue equal to the amounts spent in the various joint programs, so the provinces themselves may collect the revenues and taxes and administer what were formerly joint plans.
However, if we admit this principle, there are in Bill C-142 certain provisions which could be improved. Quite often it is the role of the opposition to make suggestions so as to improve a bill of this nature. In my opinion, here is the most important improvement which should be brought to Bill C-142: Under its provisions, the federal government retains the right to audit and inspect the records of the provinces which will administer those programs themselves. The federal government is giving something away, but it retains a measure of control in order to inspect and check those joint programs.
Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable because the provinces are now clearly capable of administering themselves. All the more so since those fields belong to provincial jurisdictions under the British North America Act.
The provinces will have sufficient income to carry on the implementation of those projects. Then, why should the federal government, which will no longer collect the taxes, which will no longer be there to pass and administer regulations, continue to interfere in provincial matters through inspection, auditing and control when the provinces no longer need the federal government?
Let the federal government start by auditing itself, inspecting itself, before auditing and inspecting what concerns other governments that have no need for such interference by the federal authority in provincial matters.
There is for instance the hospital insurance plan. The provinces must be in a position- and they are capable of doing so-to administer their own plans, to select their projects, to provide the services that they wish, without having to answer to federal authorities. What the Minister of Finance is now doing is to give and hold back at the same time, since he keeps a right of control, of auditing, of inspection of those plans.

Why always try to hold at the end of a string or a chain the provincial authorities which are clearly capable of administering in their own areas?
Mr. Speaker, this makes it all the more necessary to give back to the provinces, without conditions or restrictions, the sources of income they need to be in a position to decide for themselves which plans they want to introduce according to various regions, and we know that regions differ greatly in Canada, that all regions do not have the same problems. Then why not give back to the provinces the sources of income they need? Why not leave it up to the provinces, giving them the necessary authority, to decide what plans they will implement in their territory, what plans they will put the emphasis on, what plans they need more than others.
Let the provinces take such decisions and give them back the sources of income they are entitled to under the Canadian constitution. Let the provinces select themselves their plans and priorities as they wish.
Of course, in certain areas, there will be provinces that are behind, and in other areas, the same provinces will be ahead. Then, in the areas where the province lags behind, greater sums of money will be provided at its discretion because, after all, the elected representatives of the people are the ones to decide about it.
I notice, for instance, that the federal government clearly interferes in the field of education. It has even given instructions. Here is what one can read in this bill:
(a)	vocational high school training;
(b)	technical training;
(c)	training of the disabled;
(d)	training of technical and vocational teachers;
(e)	student aid;
(f)	technical and vocational correspondence courses;
(g)	that part of the trade and occupational training program that does not relate to the training of persons who are already members of the labour force.
Those are all points on which the federal government has infringed upon the field of education in the past few years.
If Quebec wishes to appropriate more funds to other programs, if it feels that a priority need is involved, it should be free to make a choice all by itself.
In that way the provinces will be getting back a fair percentage of the income tax equivalent to joint programs, for the needs of the provinces are greater than those of the federal government at present.

When I look at the expenditures of the federal government, I feel it is scandalous for Ottav/a to take such a large share of our tax dollar when it does little with it for the Canadian people. For the Department of Finance alone an enormous amount, $1,712 million, is spent. The Canadian people get absolutely nothing out of that.
I see, for instance, that debt charges amount to $1,101 million. That does not give the Canadian people anything either.
I notice that the R.C.M.P. costs us $75,927,000 even though our needs are much greater in other fields, for instance in agriculture. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration costs $92,279,000 a year whereas nothing is done to help farmers get out of the slump in which they are right now. Such expenditures for federal departments are a scandal. In fact, it goes beyond any understanding that an agency like the economic council of Canada should get only $990,000, not even a million, when it has to encourage the establishment of new industries and promote economic development in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we note, for instance, that the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, one of the most important departments, have been reduced by $19 million, and in order to increase what? The public debt charges. The same is true of the C.B.C., the R.C.M.P. and the taxation division estimates.
That is how the Minister of Finance is spending our money, when the provinces have ever increasing needs directly affecting the Canadian people, even every individual. That is why we want the federal government to withdraw increasingly from taxation fields, so as to leave them to the provincial governments.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)-that tickled me somewhat-ask how Quebec would be able to solve and finance by itself its educational problem. My answer to that is this. Do not worry, the province of Quebec is as able as any other Canadian province to solve its educational problem and to set up an educational system which will compare favourably with any other in the world. The province of Quebec is able to do that.
Now, it is asked also: How would the province of Quebec be able to finance such a system by itself? It could probably not do so in the past, because Ottawa used to come and take all the money. Then, there was nothing left for Quebec. But when the sources of revenue from personal and corporate in-20220-801J
Dominion-Provincial Relations come taxes are given back to Quebec, then there will be no reason to worry.
It is obvious that as long as Ottawa holds the purse strings, with Quebec having practically nothing, it will not be able to finance its educational system. But if they let Quebec collect its own taxes, then nobody in this house will wonder how Quebec will be able to solve and finance its educational problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have enough confidence in our university teachers, our educators in the province of Quebec, in short in the educational system which is being set up, to know that Quebec is able to set up an educational system which will be as good as that of any other country in the world. In fact, I am surprised by the fact that people always ask why Quebec would not be able to create an adequate system of education. I am of the opinion that there are in Quebec people able to set up a system which will be the pride of all Canada and all Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate on the bill concerning the withdrawal of the federal government from certain joint programs, it has been asked whether such a withdrawal would affect Canadian unity. It has been asked how this unity will be preserved if the provinces opt out from these shared programs.
Mr. Speaker, I have always said and I still maintain that the only way to restore, not unity because that would be a chimerical dream, but goodwill in Canada, is that everyone should mind his own business.
Quebec's business is education, highways, health, natural resources and other fields granted to the provinces under the British North America Act. The federal government should stop minding Quebec's business; Quebec should be free to look after its own business and should get back the sources of income to which it is entitled.
When Ottawa starts minding its own business and stops encroaching continually on fields of provincial jurisdiction, then goodwill will be possible in Canada, but not otherwise. In fact, as long as the federal government keeps on guiding and directing Quebec as if it were a child, goodwill will not be possible, because we will never again accept the tutelage of a central government in fields coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province of Quebec, according to the British North America Act.
All the problems facing us today arise from the fact that all levels of government are trying to find sources of income. Municipali-

Dominion-Provincial Relations ties, school boards, provincial governments, the federal government, all are looking for sources of income and all of them have decided to take it from the only possible place, that is the taxpayers' pockets.
All governments lack imagination when it comes to trying to find some other source of revenue or another place where to seek the necessary funds to finance shared programs and especially hospital insurance, education and even public works. All lack imagination when it comes to finding sources of revenue elsewhere than in the pockets of the Canadian citizens. We can see the governments, at all levels, trying to outdo one another in drawing money from the taxpayer and the taxpayer is always the one who has to pay the shot.
How many new taxes were imposed or how many times were the taxes increased since this government came into power? In the field of building materials, for instance, the increase went as far as 11 per cent and never, except once, was the Minister of Finance able to find sources of revenue elsewhere than in the pockets of the taxpayer.
Once, he thought it advisable to use the Bank of Canada to help England. But for Canadians, no. He made a direct loan to England through the Bank of Canada. Why does not the Minister of Finance allow provincial governments to borrow directly from the Bank of Canada, with charges limited to management cost, the amounts needed for the development of the Canadian economy?
The minister has allowed the Bank of Canada to lend money to England to save the pound sterling. Would it not be more important to save the Canadian farmer who is suffering dire hardship? Would it not be also more important to save the Canadian unemployed who become every day more discouraged and more distressed in their own country? But the Minister of Finance does not think of that. To save England or the pound sterling, yes. But for the Canadian citizens, never.
Social credit for Britain, that is fine. But Canadians have to be satisfied with bank credit, the credit provided by big capitalists and that you borrow at high interest rates. And what does the Minister, of Finance do each year? He skips over that. He merely refers to it in passing, a matter of 20 seconds perhaps. I am even wondering if he did mention, seeing how unimportant it is to him, that the government would pay the fantastic sum of $1,100 million in debt interest charges alone. And we accept that. The Minister of Finance does not spend much

time on that. He goes over that very quickly.
Mr. Speaker, as long as we have a government that only thinks in terms of big capitalists, the Canadian people will react as they do today and demand some changes.
We shall accept, in principle, the opting out policy for shared cost programs, while being opposed to all those ropes with which the federal government wants to tie up the administration of those programs, one of which consists in checking the books as far as the implementation of such programs is concerned.
We say to the government that by attempting to solve problems of a public nature by way of taxes, it will make the people poorer. We suggest instead the use of the Bank of Canada to lend money to every public organization in need of capital to set those programs which were joint programs in the past.
As health insurance is on its way in, why not use the Bank of Canada to finance the plan under which every Canadian citizen could go to the doctor, the surgeon or the druggist without running into debt as he does today?
We are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government and the finance department withdraw as quickly as possible from those taxation fields. They should stop impoverishing the people. They should rather utilize a means at their disposal, that is the Bank of Canada, to finance education, health insurance, hospital insurance, pension plans, unemployment assistance, public works. Canada would be far better off and there would be expansion of the economy instead of the government and the people steadily going into debt, and taxes would not increase constantly. The Canadian people are not getting any richer this way; they are getting poorer.
I think the government is not discharging its responsibilities as long as it is not creating the necessary credit to foster a greater economic growth and a greater development of our natural resources.
We accept this in principle, but we find, once again, that the government is not assuming its responsibilities in controlling finance in order to permit the Canadian people to benefit from the country's natural resources.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) spoke this afternoon he mentioned the uneasy feeling which exists in the country over federal-provincial relations. This is understandable

because it is a very complex matter. It is understandable also because various people, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) have been stressing some of the problems of this relationship, particularly that of Quebec within confederation. Some segments of the press have also been playing with opting out, interpreting that phrase in a rather unfortunate way. It is therefore my purpose this evening to go briefly over the subject and try to put it in a better perspective, certainly a more positive perspective.
First, there is the general concept of conditional grants, and I want to define in a very loose but I think useful way what conditional grants are. They are grants from the federal treasury to the provinces, with some strings attached. They differ therefore in an important way from unconditional grants, which are grants from the federal treasury to the provinces with no strings attached. The provinces can choose their own priorities.
I believe we must continue to have conditional grants in this country-unconditional grants to help equalize opportunities for Canadians across the country-but conditional grants from Ottawa, with strings attached, in order to set certain national standards and make this a more viable country.
In economic terms there are at least three prerequisites to a nation. One is the free movement of goods and services throughout the country. In other words we must have in this half continent a common market, with free trade between the provinces. We also must have the free movement of money, or capital, and in order to ensure that we continue to have this we must have only one set of banking institutions. Canada, the nation, must insist on retaining federal control, national control, the control it has under the British North America Act, over money and banking.
Number three is that we must have certain standards, minimum standards across the country which will enable people to move more freely throughout Canada from job to job, to have greater opportunities and more even opportunities from province to province.
These are the three basic economic criteria-free movement of goods, free movement of money, and free movement of people, or greater mobility. In order to have this greater mobility we move essentially into areas of federal-provincial, and indeed provincial jurisdiction, into areas of highways, health, employment, or measures to promote more employment, and certain municipal services. Mobility in this sense is immensely im-
Dominion-Provincial Relations portant and there must be co-operation between the provinces and the nation.
As I have said before, this is a complex problem. Many countries, notably the United Kingdom, basically have only two levels of government, national and municipal. In this country to look after our varied and extensive territories and our regional differences we have provincial governments as well. We have three levels of government, and it is important that the powers of the provinces and the powers of the nation be properly defined. Conditional grants meanwhile have helped to make our constitution a more flexible one. In legal terms at least our constitution has not been modified greatly in the last 97 years. I hope that with the repatriation of the constitution it will be easier to do this in the future, but in the meantime the real effect of the division of powers in Canada has been bent and moulded to a considerable extent through the use of conditional grants.
Historically there are two basic approaches, widely different approaches, to conditional grants. One was the approach taken after the very exhaustive surveys of the Rowell-Sirois commission in the late thirties; the commission which was established as the result of the great depression and the concern about the inability of many provinces to finance the responsibilities which fall to them under the B.N.A. Act.
As I recall it, the Rowell-Sirois commission was not enamoured of conditional grants. It believed quite strongly in unconditional grants. It believed that the taxing powers in the main should be transferred to the federal government, that an equalization grant be given to each province, and that these grants be sufficient, so that the provinces in a relatively uniform manner could carry out all those responsibilities which fall to them under the B.N.A. Act.
The federal-provincial conference of 1942 discussed the Rowell-Sirois commission recommendations. The premiers of the provinces were not very enthusiastic, and the government of the day subsequently took a different tack in the so-called green book proposals of 1945. These consisted of a series of conditional grants pertaining to a very wide range of subjects falling within areas of provincial jurisdiction as outlined in the B.N.A. Act. Again that federal-provincial conference did not get very far.
A swing therefore took place from the Rowell-Sirois commission emphasis on unconditional grants to the green book pro-

Dominion-Provincial Relations posals, emphasizing conditional grants in the post-war reconstruction period. Each could have resulted in wide ranging agreements between the nation and the provinces.
In the years between 1946 and 1960 in an ad hoc, piecemeal way a large number of conditional grants were in fact set up. In other words, a good many of the green book proposals in the reconstruction era at the end of the war were in fact put into effect.
These proposals, mainly brought in by the King and St. Laurent governments, but added to by the Diefenbaker administration, helped to cement federal-provincial relations by resorting to conditional grants in a big way. Indeed it was not until the federal-provincial conference of 1960 that the provinces began to exhibit some real misgivings as to the nature and extent, particularly the extent, of conditional grants.
I understand that in 1957 the conditional grants amounted in total only to about $111 million. I say only, because by 1960-61 they were up to some $390 million, and since they have gone up and up and are now approaching the level of $1 billion. Obviously conditional grants have become very important in the post-war era. They have become in some respects onerous to the provinces, particularly with respect to the way in which the federal government requires the provinces to live up to certain standards.
I wish to refer briefly to the attitudes of the premiers of the provinces during the 1960 federal-provincial conference. I quote Premier Roblin of Manitoba from a booklet which I recommend to all hon. members, "Conditional Grants and Canadian Federalism," written by Donald V. Smiley of the University of British Columbia and published by the Canadian tax foundation in 1963. Premier Roblin is quoted on page 13 of this booklet as follows:
"We remain convinced.. .that some of the programs at least, initiated as they often are from the centre, place a sometimes onerous burden upon provincial and local finances at times when these local resources are least able to bear even the share of the total program costs left to them..."
Two of the premiers pointed out the administrative rigidities inherent in the existing grant arrangements. Premier Shaw commented that grants imparted "a degree of rigidity in the direction of provincial expenditures and reduce budgetary flexibility" as well as acting as a deterrent to long term budgetary planning by introducing uncertainties attendant upon future federal action in embarking on new programs or expanding existing ones.
Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan also spoke of the "rigidities" in the narrow definitions of aided activities. Both premiers suggested the possible

replacement of the present arrangements by "block" grants for broad areas of provincial activity.
I want to refer briefly to statements by two other premiers, Premier Manning of Alberta and Premier Lesage of Quebec. They attacked conditional grants on more clearly ideological grounds. Premier Manning, for example asserted.
These shared cost programs, particularly in the field of social services, of necessity transfer policy decisions from the legislatures of the respective provinces to the parliament and government of Canada. If the government of Canada decides that a certain form of health program or medical program... is desirable and is the type of program to which they are prepared to contribute, the provinces are then put in a position where no longer as legislators they decide as a matter of provincial policy that this is the type of social service their people require or desire, but rather their status is reduced to the mere right to decide whether or not they will participate in a program that already has been decided at the federal level.
I am looking for some notes here, Mr. Speaker, to which I wanted to refer, but perhaps I had better go on without reading. I wanted to refer to the position taken, first by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in a speech which he gave in Quebec city late in the fall of 1961. He outlined substantially the approach that is being taken in the present legislation. He, in effect, said that provinces should be permitted to contract out of programs which were well established and continuing in nature. He also went on to say that new initiatives would be taken and should be taken along the line of conditional grants and that these new programs should, in the main, have a limited duration; they should be introduced but for a specific period of time. In connection with those provinces which for various reasons, and particularly in the area of cultural activities, decided not to participate, they would not suffer any financial disability as a result of these arrangements. This, I believe, was the intent of the statement and this has substantially been followed in the current legislation.
I find also that in that year the New Democratic party, at its founding convention, paid a good deal of attention to federal-provincial relations. It came out in favour of dropping certain continuing programs, that is it provided for opting out. It also recommended the establishment of new programs, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has emphasized today. So I do not see that the New Democratic party, at least in its platform as adopted and enunciated in 1961, can argue very vociferously against the provisions of the current bill.

The present legislation is limited. It is limited in time to the period through to 1967-70. It deals only with established conditional grant programs. These established programs are ones which have been in existence for a considerable period of years, and they are ones which have become effectively imbedded in the fabric of our provincial administration in this country. A province which chooses to contract out of these programs, to in effect raise its own taxes to pay for them, will in the very nature of things be carrying on that program under its own auspices. In my view nothing is lost. Perhaps something is gained. The province in question will at least be taking on the responsibility of raising the taxes, raising the revenue, which it is spending in order to carry out these continuing programs.
The legislation as embraced in Bill No. C-142 also requires the provinces, under clause 3(2), to provide Ottawa with an accounting of the expenditures, so that during this interim period there is at least a measure of federal control. There is some measure of consolidation of the programs, but basically these programs continue on as they would have done, without change.
There are variable items in these financial arrangements. The ones which can be changed from time to time, such as capital investment, new construction and research have been retained by the federal government. In other words, the more variable elements, the more variable budgetary items have been retained by Ottawa. It is only the continuing programs, the ones in which there is a continuing, steady, consistent financial outlay which are available to the provinces which opt out, or contract out of these particular plans.
I think it is important to stress that nowhere has Ottawa given up its initiative in respect of these programs, programs which in the main are in the provincial area of responsibility. Ottawa, in my view, is not restricted in any way from embarking upon a national health program, programs for additional research assistance for the universities, on a second trans-Canada highway, and so on. These are not inhibited in any way by the current legislation. So those who would have Ottawa take the initiative in these important fields do not have to worry.
For those who think in terms of influencing the business cycle, or fiscal control, it is important to keep the total dollar values in some perspective. The federal budget is currently approaching $8 billion. During the last
Dominion-Provincial Relations year or so the provinces, in total, have had budgets passing that amount. In other words, the provinces collectively are financially now more important than Ottawa. Our continuing conditional grant arrangements meanwhile are now of the order of $1 billion. This is the amount of money, the degree of financial responsibility which is available to the province or provinces which collectively decide to take up this option and run these programs on their own. In other words, Ottawa is not giving up all its obligations. It is offering to give up a maximum of one eighth. And it is giving up the continuing elements, the consistent, stable elements; not the highly variable ones. So Ottawa is clearly maintaining the measure of control which is vital in respect of fiscal matters and monetary affairs.
There is another aspect to which I should like to refer briefly. These continuing programs, these conditional grants programs, which have become well established in the provinces which have come up to the specifications set by Ottawa, will over the years constitute a declining percentage of the total outlays of government. To the extent that they constitute a declining percentage of the total outlays of government they will call for a declining number of points in the personal income tax scale. In other words, where Ottawa has to move over by a given number of points today in order to turn over not only the responsibility but the resources necessary to finance these programs in the provinces, a lesser number of percentage points in the income tax scale will be required in ten years time, a still lesser number of percentage points in 20 years time, and so on. These continuing programs will become relatively less important with the passage of time. Hence Ottawa is not only turning over a fixed financial responsibility but is turning over programs which will diminish in the total picture and become less important in the over-all scheme of things.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has introduced an amendment. In effect, this amendment would refer the matters discussed in Bill No. C-142 back to yet another federal-provincial conference. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) says, there has already been 25 such conferences large and small over the last two years. We have had a lot of them. The hon. member for Edmonton West was most sarcastic a few months ago, I remember, claiming that we had a fourth level of govern-

Dominion-Provincial Relations ment in this country, a level of government which consisted of federal-provincial conferences. He thought this was a bad thing. But he is obviously falling into his own trap by advocating that we have yet another federal-provincial conference to resolve a matter which has been discussed and resolved between the federal authority and the provinces in recent months.
I think we must all be concerned about priorities, and the word "priorities" is mentioned in the amendment. The priorities today are shifting toward education, employment, health and municipal services. These in the main are responsibilities which under the B.N.A. Act belong to the provinces. In other words, priorities in expenditure are shifting toward the provinces. This is one of the reasons that a federal-provincial tax structure committee has been set up. It was set up last fall. It will be making interim reports, one this summer, and a final report, I understand, late in 1966. It will be exploring needs, establishing priorities, priorities not just purely provincial or purely federal, but covering the entire spectrum of federal-provincial affairs. It will be looking for tax sources and at methods of taxation. In other words, it will look at the obligations, the global picture of obligations, on the one hand, and at the sum total of tax resources on the other.
This tax structure committee will, I trust, come up with some of the answers. I trust that by 1967, as a result of this federal-provincial committee's work, we will have something akin to the Rowell-Sirois report of 1940 or the green book proposals of 1945. At least the approach will be comprehensive and there will be a meaningful analysis of the problems, a pattern toward which future legislation can be directed, which will sort out some of the uncertainties and a great many of the complexities which exist in federal-provincial financial and other arrangements.
I believe that in order for a democracy to work effectively, government has to be understandable. This is difficult in a federal system because of the several levels of government. I believe government must also be predictable. It must not only know where it is going, but it must indicate to everyone, private, public and departmental, where it is going. I think that as a result of this federal-provincial tax conference, we will get some of the guidelines prepared for us, and I trust it will be possible to follow these toward goals which many of us agree are desirable.


I trust too that there will be a reasonably clear division of responsibilities between the provinces on the one hand, the federal government on the other. As a result of constitutional changes we will, in a formal way, reallocate some of these responsibilities. But I am certain that conditional grants, new ones presumably, will also be needed in order to help carry out this process and help to distribute the wealth from the richer provinces in some measure to the less fortunate areas of the country. As for new initiatives, I trust future federal governments will be discussing them carefully and conclusively with the provinces before they are finalized and brought in as legislation.
I trust that the provinces will have an opportunity not to contract out-and I think the term is unfortunate-but to contract into these conditional grant programs across the country. Then it will be obvious to all that this is a nation building process. This is a process of setting up minimum standards of education and maximizing the opportunities for the youth of the country, providing pension and health benefits which enable people to move more freely around the country-in effect to give greater opportunities to all Canadians to really be Canadian in a united country.
Personally-and I am speaking personally throughout most of these remarks-I believe in a strong united Canada and in a Canada in which the national government takes on the task of giving strong and resolute leadership. In this dynamic federalism the national government may be creating new conditional grants programs from time to time. I trust also that it will be getting out of others. In effect, it will be possible for provinces to contract out of some and into other programs. I trust that all of them will contract in to all of the new programs, that is with rare exceptions. Also, as these programs age, and as they become established and part of the financial and social fabric of the country, I hope it will be possible for the federal government to give up its responsibility for policing these programs. The provinces will take them on on their own initiative, and they will become part and parcel of the provincial responsibilities both in respect to spending the money and raising it.
This is what Bill No. C-142 gives us a glimpse of. It does not set up an over-all pattern, but it certainly give us a glimpse of the possibility of a flexible arrangement whereby we can initiate new programs and eventually

let them rest at the proper level of governmental responsibility in this country.
That, then, is my main message. I think we can have a united Canada, a more flexible country, a country which is substantially a common market for goods and services and for money. I think we will see people becoming increasingly mobile throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I trust that the responsibilities of the provinces will be increasingly assumed by the provinces. But in the process the federal government will be showing many of the initiatives, initiatives which are nation-wide in scope and which make the country more of a unit, more of an entity and more of a nation as time goes by.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. member permit a question. What is the argument in favour of a province contracting out of these programs now, when some of them run for just another two years? Why should it be done now?


John (Jack) Davis: First of all, Mr. Speaker, most of these programs, and as I understand it virtually all of them, fall within provincial jurisdiction. This will make it possible for the provinces to properly assume their responsibilities. The federal government has made it possible to finance a program earlier in most cases than would otherwise have been the case. One reason a province may wish to do this is to publicly exert its rights under the British North America Act. In other cases it is administratively easier to do it this way. I have heard it said in some quarters that it would be preferable to administer these programs entirely within a province. There may be other reasons involved, but those are the two I can think of offhand.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the fact the hon. member strongly opposed the Columbia river treaty, how do we know that he is correct on this occasion in his argument?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West knows as well as I do that the Columbia river treaty is a monument to federal-provincial co-operation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A monument is raised to something that is dead.


John (Jack) Davis: If I pose as any kind of an expert in this debate it is on the financial side, and it does seem to me that the Columbia river treaty, before the arrangements which were entered into last year were brought to fruition, was an economic catastrophe in this country. Until sale arrange-20220-802
Dominion-Provincial Relations ments of power to the United States had been made finally and definitely there was no point in going ahead and building the dams. The sale agreement was accomplished. It was the lack of financial viability which caused me to oppose the treaty, at least until a firm contract existed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the hon. member-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member refer to contracting out arrangements and contracting in arrangements. I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to give us an example of a contracting in arrangement.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the terminology is poor, because Canadians should think more in terms of positive measures. The term "contracting out" is one which has been used widely across the country. The term "contracting in", in respect of the future, pre-supposes that the federal government will negotiate and define future conditional grant programs, and then ask the provinces whether they wish to contract into them or not. If they follow the form of existing programs which deal with matters largely in the area of provincial responsibility, but into which the federal government has moved, I suggest that it should tread lightly, because the provinces have the right to stay in or stay out. Under those circumstances I suggest the provinces will in effect contract in.


George Louis Chatterton: In other words, the example given by the hon. member of contracting in is completely hypothetical and completely inconceivable under this government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member who has just concluded his speech, during which he admitted that all these programs are clearly within provincial jurisdiction, whether he thinks it is a good idea for the federal government to have control of the details of the programs, in so far as their administration, is concerned, as provided in clause 3 (2) of Bill C-142?


John (Jack) Davis: I am not a lawyer, but I understand that lawyers can argue that in quite a number of these areas there is some federal responsibility. Many of us as Canadians point to certain requirements and say that this is a matter of national interest, and when there is general agreement that a specific area is

Dominion-Provincial Relations of national interest the federal government may well decide to take the initiative in such an area which the B.N.A. Act, according to most lawyers, would indicate is of provincial responsibility. There are many such areas, such as ARDA, in which the federal government has a responsibility in respect of agriculture, but where the general working out of legislation involves provincial responsibilities as well.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. The hon. member has no qualms about the federal government taking the initiative in areas which, as he has said according to the B.N.A. Act, are clearly within provincial jurisdiction, such as education-


John (Jack) Davis: I do not agree with that statement. Let me state that I should like to see our constitution evolve. I should like to see the appropriate levels of government taking the responsibility for raising the money and spending it. Surely that is the only meaningful system that we can have; and in this regard I believe our constitution must evolve, in which case some of the responsibility should shift to the federal government. At the present time we have no flexibility whatever in the constitution, and conditional grants have afforded a means by which we have been able partially to get around the problem. I think in future, through a change in responsibility, there will be a shifting from one level of government to another, enabling everyone to deal more appropriately with these problems.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the amiable nature of the hon. member's answers, Mr. Speaker, would he permit another question? The hon. member took some exception to the term "opting out". Would the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister agree that that term was first coined by the Prime Minister?


John (Jack) Davis: I have no knowledge of that fact, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that the first instance of the useage of what is called an opting-out arrangement was between the province of Quebec and the nation in 1960- that is, between Mr. Paul Sauve's government and the Diefenbaker government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. members that we are now discussing the amendment to the motion for second reading, where the procedure is quite different from that followed when the house is in committee.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, in winding up his remarks, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) said that his colleagues were in favour of a united Canada with a strong central government. I should like to associate myself most emphatically with that sentiment. A united Canada is what we need, and I am sure what every member of this chamber is working toward. There may be honest differences of opinion as to how we can best promote unity in this country, but in a discussion of the amendment to Bill C-142 we should have a right and a duty to express ourselves frankly and honestly to the end that we may promote that national unity in this country which we all want.
Bill C-142 is of great importance. It marks a fundamental change in the attitude of the provinces toward a strong central government, and for that reason we should be very careful in processing this legislation. I am wholeheartedly in support of the amendment which has been moved to the effect that this legislation should not be proceeded with further at this time until there has been an opportunity for a full review by a competent authority of the whole field of federal-provincial relationships.
We might refresh our minds by reading the amendment:
That Bill C-142 be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the priorities of their requirements desired by the provinces of Canada and its territories in those fields of jurisdiction indicated in the schedules of the said bill, such priorities to be established at a federal-provincial conference convened for the said purpose.
In order to understand the amendment it might be wise to take a look at the thinking and reasoning behind the bill. To do this we can go back for a number of years in our history to about the time of world war II when these shared programs began. In introducing the legislation the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) pointed out quite well the reasons for these shared programs and said on March 17 last, as found on page 12482 of Hansard:
Shared cost programs have been evolved over the years to meet a variety of specific needs such as the provision of basic welfare services, basic health services, requirements for economic development and, in some cases, problems which, although temporary or local, were beyond the capacity of local resources.
He went on to point out that these needs have been met over the years. He said:
The provinces obtained the financial assistance that was necessary to enable them to provide
12SS7

such services and at the same time it ensured a basic standard of services across Canada. The value of this approach in meeting these needs is evidenced by the number, scope and size of the current programs. In the current year such programs are expected to involve federal transfers to the provinces of more than $900 million, a substantial measure of assistance to governments whose level of expenditures has been rising rapidly in recent years.
Then he went on to point out why he thinks the reasons for these shared cost programs no longer exist and said that possibly we should now cancel them. He pointed out that these programs fall for the most part, or altogether, under provincial jurisdiction. With that I think everyone is prepared to agree. Then he went on to say:
Second, one of the fundamental problems which gave rise to these programs-that of unequal fiscal capacity among the various provinces -has been overcome to a considerable extent by the present system of equalization payments. Third, certain programs, such as hospital insurance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances, are mature and well established, and it is inconceivable that they would be discontinued by any government. Finally, conditional fiscal transfers have reached such a magnitude that one must consider the wisdom of continuing to separate responsibility for administering and spending large sums of money from the responsibility of raising the revenues. In the light of these and other developments which I enumerated in my speech on the resolution the case for continued federal participation in established joint programs is not as strong as it used to be.
He points out that these shared cost programs were entered into as a means of spreading the benefits of our national production in a better way, and I would liken them to the grants which are paid by provinces to municipalities. Through government grants the weaker municipalities are aided by the stronger municipalities and through these cost sharing programs the weaker economic areas of Canada have been assisted and helped by the stronger economic areas of Canada.
Take provinces like Ontario and Quebec in which are located many of the head offices of companies which draw revenue from all across the country. It would be unfair if provinces far distant from Toronto, for instance, which send large sums of money to the city of Toronto, had to finance their own services while the city of Toronto, drawing revenue from all across the country, was permitted to tax the head offices of these companies and thereby gain great revenue. If all that revenue were'left with that city to spend on its own services it would be grossly unfair. Therefore through the federal system of paying grants to provinces and through these shared cost programs, which have the same effect in our 20220-802J
Dominion-Provincial Relations national economy, the weaker areas of Canada have been helped by the stronger areas.
I contend that this need is just as great today as it was when these shared cost programs were begun. Considerable credit is due the former Conservative government because they greatly increased federal grants to provinces and to the less favoured areas of the country. The increased grants together with the shared cost programs have had the effect of standardizing services all across the country.
For 98 years this country has been able to get along very well under the British North America Act, which gave certain responsibilities to the provinces and certain responsibilities to the federal government. It seemed that the only way or the best way at least for the two levels of government to co-operate was through the program of shared services. This legislation is a transitional measure. It is felt by the government, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, that the time has come when these shared programs can be discontinued without harm to the economy of the country. I would not agree entirely with this, but this is the contention and these opinions are honestly held. We are all working for the good of the country. We are working for national unity and we are working for a strong and united Canada. The government has taken the stand that in order to promote unity and good feeling in the country these shared programs should now be discontinued in any province that wishes to discontinue them. It is of a transitional nature. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), by the minister and others, that these programs can now safely be discontinued and that national unity may be strengthened by a provincial conference consideration of the whole matter of federal-provincial relationships.
Now, what I find it very difficult to understand is why the government could not have waited for a federal-provincial conference to give consideration to this matter and to make a report before taking action to discontinue the shared programs. I can only reach one conclusion, and that is that the reasons for recommending the discontinuance of these programs are not necessarily the reasons which the government have offered. I feel we have to look farther afield for the reasons, and the reasons are not essentially economic; they are social in effect. We have been told often enough that Quebec has been dissatisfied and wishes to assume a greater share of responsibility for their own affairs.

Dominion-Provincial Relations It appears that the government, in their wisdom are offering to the provinces, particularly to the benefit of Quebec, this opportunity to opt out of all the shared programs.
There are many people in this country who view this trend with considerable alarm. There are two schools of thought in this country as to how national unity can best be promoted. One school of thought contends it can be promoted through a strong central government, through what has been called the one Canada concept. I do not know that that term is too accurate as a term, any more than the term opting out is too accurate as a term. There can be plenty of argument over the semantics. However, these terms do have meaning. Opting out has a meaning, and one Canada has a meaning.
Now, we come to another concept and that is the concept of an associate state. The two schools of thought are both concerned with the promotion of national unity but are divided between the one Canada concept and the associate state concept. There are many people who feel that the offer of the federal government to permit the provinces to opt out of these shared programs is tending toward the development of associate states. They fear this concept. They fear that if the provinces each go their own way, that in the end the provinces will become divided.
I am not depending entirely on my own reasoning in dealing with this concept of associate states. I have a Canadian Press report, printed in the London Free Press of March 10, 1965, emanating from Montreal which states:
A system of associated states has been suggested by 40 classical colleges in Quebec province as the solution to Canada's constitutional problems.
There you have one reference to it.
Officials of 29 such colleges said independence for Quebec could come in the future.
Now, that is one of the fears of the people of this country, that the concept of associate states is opening up a door which could eventually lead to a weakening of our central government and a breaking down of the unity of our nation.


Mr. Turner:: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question at this point? Is he inferring that this legislation, which is returning to the provinces matters that were originally under their jurisdiction in any event under the British North America Act, is contributing to associate state status? I do not quite follow his argument.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am contending that the opting out legislation does

contribute or tend towards this concept of associate states. If we do not view this opting out legislation as part of a general package deal, it makes very little sense. In dealing with this point I should like to look back at the speech by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has a trained legal mind, just as I believe my friend across the aisle has. This is the way the hon. member for Edmonton West put it, and I am arguing at this point that if we do not consider this opting out legislation as part of a trend or a move in a certain direction, it makes very little sense. This is what he says, as recorded at page 12486 of Hansard:
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the Canadian public in the last few years.
There is no opting out in this bill. Provinces are going to be given the right to sign supplementary agreements to joint programs in which they are now involved, but those supplementary agreements so far as the great majority of and the most important joint programs covered by the bill are concerned, will not give a province one more iota of freedom or room to manoeuvre. Essentially they will be the same programs, with the one basic exception that provinces will take over their administration.
I believe that has been pointed out adequately by several speakers. This proposed Bill No. C-142 does not change a thing. It permits the provinces who wish to do so- and so far only the province of Quebec has expressed any interest in opting out-a greater measure of autonomy. When you couple the opting out legislation with the stand taken by the federation of classical colleges of Quebec the whole matter becomes clearer. It becomes a picture, a trend, a package deal.
I now come to another report by Canadian Press from Montreal, dealing with a brief submitted by the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. To be fair, there were some comments in the press to the effect that the society members were not unanimous on this, but the report reads as follows:
Based on the society's oft-expressed view that Quebec should be given the status of an associate state within confederation, the blueprint came complete with a whole new set of federal institutions to carry out limited assignments mutually agreed on by the two "sovereign" states of Quebec and English Canada.
There we have it again.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) had this to say in Winnipeg also as reported by Canadian Press:
Quebec-and perhaps other provinces-will have complete autonomy within 10 years. Mr. Caouette

said Quebec demands control of its own credit; permission to develop its natural resources without federal interference; control of its own exports and imports; control over its own immigration; and control of its tax system.
These statements indicate a direction in which the people of Quebec wish to go, and when we look at this opting out legislation in connection with the whole matter of future constitutional relationships we get a picture which is seriously disturbing to many of the people of Canada. Opinions differ with regard to the matter of national unity and the means by which it can be reached, but these views are honestly held. The only way to thresh these matters out and reach reasonable agreement is to express such views freely and honestly in this chamber so that the people may know whether their aspirations and desires are being adequately represented.
In the few minutes left to me I would like to put on the record what Senator Flynn, a senator from Quebec, had to say in the other house, speaking on July 27 in connection with student loans:
Now I feel that this possibility of option offered for all practical purposes to the province of Quebec alone encourages the isolation of that province at a time when it is already encouraged by other circumstances, and this at the expense of Canadian unity. I feel that this optional system is a bad thing.
He had another comment to make in connection with the effect of the federal-provincial conference out of which this legislation grew, and he said this about federal-provincial conferences, and the need for some authority to rule whether legislation comes under provincial or federal jurisdiction:
If we agree on the supreme court, let the legislation be submitted to the supreme court. I object to the constitution being amended by a majority of the provinces.
Suppose this act was ultra vires with regard to the powers of this parliament. Would the fact that nine provinces out of ten agree with the central government make it constitutional? Of course not. However, that is what is happening in the way the government is acting.
With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and I do not think the present minority government has any right to proceed with the processing of this legislation without a further mandate from the people of Canada to do so. We did not have this as an issue in the last election, and I do not think the government has the support which it thinks it has among the people of Canada to promote such opting out legislation. I repeat it should not proceed further without a definite mandate from the electors of Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Nowlan:: May I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, and call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we have the business of the house for tomorrow?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start with the Canada pension plan bill, and if that is finished we will revert to either the opting out legislation or the Companies Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, during the question period today I indicated my concern at the fact that our law seems so inadequate as to prevent the taking over of Canadian industries by United States control. What brought the matter to my attention most recently was the ruling by the United States department of justice prohibiting Molson breweries from taking over the Hamm brewery, one of the smaller breweries in California. I have been perturbed on this point of take-overs, of the gradual erosion of our industries and our manufacturers by our friends across the border.
I have expressed the opinion previously in this house that it was alarming that in 1962 over $400 million worth of Canadian industry passed forever out of the control of Canadian hands into those of Americans and other foreign investors. But my fears were somewhat allayed by the fact that in 1963, thanks to the measures taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) or at least to the indication by him that he took a dim view of these proceedings, this $400 million worth of take-over was reduced to approximately $50 million worth. My fears were also allayed by the realization that perhaps in time Canadian industry would reverse the trend or look favourably upon the take-over of U.S. industries when opportunities existed.
But what has happened to Molson breweries, in a straightforward attempt to expand

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their interests in the United States, indicates to us that the Americans are not quite as naive as we Canadians. They have taken adequate protection through the medium of their legislation, including anti-trust laws, to prevent the day when foreign interests, and we are included in that definition, can take over U.S. enterprises without very strong opposition on the part of U.S. industry.
I think the time has come for us to take a second look at those American companies that are already established in Canada and see if they are in effect working as good Canadians. Some of those who have established these rights in our nation should be required by legislation to put up 25 per cent of their stock to be bought by Canadian investors. In other words, it is time they stopped paying lip service to the principle of being Canadian, and did something tangible about it.
Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, March 20, and the section known as "Business News". The headline says, "Deal Off... Molson Licks Its Wounds". In this article by Mr. R. G. Gibbens certain things can be read between the lines, if you take the trouble to read it. For instance it says, referring to the justice department of the United States, that it is "a somewhat sphinx-like creatures of modern government". Then it says:
One dictionary describes a Sphinx as "a fabulous monster... supposed to devour all who were unable to answer its riddles..."
"Justice" may hardly be a monster; but the Molson emissaries in Washington never really found the answers to its riddles.
They weren't devoured.. .but they have been licking their wounds ever since the first week in March and it was clear the merger deal would be killed on anti-trust grounds, however vague.
The Molson people listened long and hard for many hours to justice department officials and their position, but they never managed to make sense of the "undue domination" argument. Specific marketing areas in the minds of the justice department were never sharply delineated-but it was clear the key market area of the U.S. at issue was the west-California.
So, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Finance through the medium of my question today, which will appear in written form tomorrow, that it is high time he and other officials of the government took a second look at the legislation that exists to see if something cannot be done to strengthen it and prevent further take-overs of our Canadian industry by American interests. Certainly if the Americans have had the foresight to write into their anti-trust laws and all the other legislation of that great nation steps to prevent the eventual take-over of their in-

dustries, it is high time that we in our nation, with the gradual erosion going on not only in the field of industry but in communications and culture, stood up and started telling the world that we are Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believes it is not in Canada's best interests for so much of our industry to be under foreign control. We all know-and based on the pressures I have been subjected to in the last two years, perhaps I know better than most people-that this is a very controversial subject. I had hoped that Canadian feelings about this might be relieved if, in addition to the enactment of appropriate laws in Canada, some of our companies were permitted to expand in the United States. The Molson company planned to do this. I was informed of their plans and welcomed them. So I was sorry to learn of the decision of the United States department of justice which will prevent the merger of the Molson and Hamm companies I am afraid some Canadians will conclude that what is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose. In answer to my hon. friend's question, let me say we have been giving a great deal of consideration to the kind of legislation that is needed to slow down and eventually to reverse the take-over of Canadian businesses and Canadian resources.
It has been suggested that we should begin with legislation in respect of certain industries-the banks for example. It has been suggested that we should push forward with new investment capital machinery which will place Canadians in a position to compete on equal terms with foreign financial interests. I am thinking of course of the Canada Development Corporation.
In view of the Molson case it has been suggested that we should take a new look at our own anti-combines or anti-trust legislation. I can assure my hon. friend that the government is giving very careful consideration to these and a variety of other proposals and suggestions.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP-AMENDMENT OF ACT TO ENSURE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, recently a judgment was handed down by the supreme court of Ontario in the Bergsma case which is straightforward in its defiance of human liberties. My question today was a twofold question

and I shall have to deal with it in two parts for that reason.
The first part of my question was whether the government was considering paying the legal fees involved in the appeal that the Bergsmas have made, and will have to be making in the future. The reason for my question is that the Bergsmas, I feel, have attempted to adopt a principle and to fight for something they genuinely believe in themselves, rather than to be hypocritical or even to lie and take a path that they do not mean, which has obviously been the case with thousands of immigrants in Canada who are neither Christian nor Jewish and who would have to use the words "so help me God". Because "God" is a word which is Judaic-Christian in its origin, and therefore Christian in its meaning, and people of other religious beliefs than Christianity and Judaism would have to be hypocritical in taking this oath. Therefore the Bergsmas, if their appeal goes through, would establish a precedent, and I feel that bearing the brunt of the expense of establishing this precedent in accordance with their own principles should be backed financially by the government.
The second part of my question was whether the government is going to do anything about amending the oath of allegiance so that this will not happen in the future. If this had been done in the case of the Bergsmas they would not have had to proceed any further.
In this regard I should like to refer first of all to the citizenship act, section 12 thereof being as follows:
A certificate of citizenship granted to any person under this part.. .shall not take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance set forth in the second schedule-
On page 20 of the act is found the second schedule which outlines the oath of which I spoke before, the oath of allegiance, ending with the words "so help me God". There is no alternative to this wording, as there is in some other oaths which we take. In the oath of allegiance there is no alternative choice of words.
In the act respecting oaths of allegiance, which is chapter 197 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, section 1 says:
Every person in Canada who.. .in obedience to the directions of any act or law in force in Canada, except the British North America Act, 1867, and the Canadian Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance, shall have administered to him and take the oath in the following form and no other:-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
And then the oath to which I have just referred is set out, ending with the words "so help me God".
In the Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1 states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada-
It does not say a citizen of Canada, but in Canada.
-there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights-
And so on. It seems to me that when I asked the question in the house at the time the Bergsma case was first brought up in the house, I asked whether the bill of rights applied only to people who had obtained their citizenship certificate, and the answer I was given was yes. Yet the bill of rights clearly points out that any person in Canada is entitled to this freedom. Surely we are not going to construe the words "freedom of religion" as meaning only people who have a belief in religion, because surely the freedom of no religion is the same thing as the freedom of religion.
Before I came to the house tonight I obtained a copy of a letter which was sent to the leader of our party, written by a man in Toronto. He states that he wants strongly to protest the existence of that part of the citizenship act which prevents atheists from becoming citizens of this country. Later on he says that we should not discriminate against atheists any more than we should discriminate against any other minority group, such as Negroes and orientals. He also states that as an atheist himself who was born in this country he does not feel that he should be allowed to remain a citizen if immigrants who are also atheists cannot become citizens.
On the strength of this letter, and on the basis of the precedent which has been established, my question is twofold to the government. Will the government consider paying the legal fees of the Bergsma family, and is there any chance of the government amending the citizenship act in such a way that the oath of allegiance will be enlarged to contain an affirmation, rather than just being an oath of allegiance?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to clarify a situation which has caused considerable concern to us during the past two days. First of all I should like to submit that

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion section 10(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act states that the minister may in his discretion grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies a court that he meets the requirements as stated under this subsection. Thus, any court or person designated as a court is acting for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the administration of this act.
Regardless of the nature of a decision rendered by a court, the department has an immediate obligation to support the court in the administration of the act on behalf of the department.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's contention poses a situation in which the department would be paying to appeal a ruling made on its behalf by a court, and in this case the county court at Cayuga, Ontario, acting under the terms of the act. Whether such action is essential under the law is a matter which must be considered by the government. I can assure the hon. member that this matter will receive every consideration.
In respect of whether changes are planned to the citizenship act dealing with the oath of allegiance, let me state that this unfortunate situation has brought to the attenion of the government the need to consider, among other amendments, an amendment to that section dealing with the oath of allegiance, so that such a situation will not again occur. I want to assure the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.



HIGHWAYS-BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

David Walter Groos: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I tried to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wanted to know whether he had received from the minister of transport of British Columbia a letter asking for the assistance of the federal government to widen from two to four lanes a section of road between Victoria and Swartz Bay.

Since this house in its wisdom, Mr. Speaker, has not yet seen fit to abolish capital punishment, I think it would be wise for me to continue my remarks in English.
This will be an expensive stretch of highway. It will cost $9J million for 18 miles. But this should come as no surprise to the

federal government. Things in British Columbia are often a little more expensive, a little better or a little bigger than in other parts of Canada. In fact I find that the dominion government was warned of this some time before British Columbia entered confederation, because in looking through the sessional papers for 1870 I noticed a letter from Governor Musgrave of British Columbia to the Governor General of Canada in which he refers to the white inhabitants of British Columbia as being "chiefly male adults of wasteful and expensive habits".


Mr. Alkenbrack:: All Liberals, I take it.


David Walter Groos: Nowadays British Columbians travel a great deal, and the most important highway along which they travel in my area is the one referred to in the letter of the British Columbia minister of highways. Although it is not a part of the trans-Canada highway system, it was built in large measure with federal government assistance over 10 years ago. The federal government of that day recognized the federal responsibility for a highway which connects the capital city of British Columbia with the B.C. mainland by the shortest land route, and passes Victoria's only airport and the federal docks at Sidney.
The two lane highway which was adequate 10 years ago is now outdated. Travellers proceeding today from beautiful and Liberal Victoria to beautiful and largely Liberal Vancouver need nothing more than a good four lane highway to carry them speedily and safely through the also beautiful but politically insecure riding of my hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich. I know that if he were in the house he would support me in this request.
What we are asking for is nothing less than a good two lane, bicultural highway going north from Victoria to Swartz Bay and beside it a good, bilingual, two lane highway heading south. I trust that the federal government, lending its aid once again, will make both of these things possible.

I thank you.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Tuesday, March 23, 1965