1965-06-28

Mr. Speaker:: With the kind permission of all hon. Members, may I say that having just returned from the United Kingdom myself it gives me the greatest pleasure indeed to welcome here this afternoon Right Hon. James Callaghan, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery. We hope, Sir, that your stay here in Ottawa and in Canada will be most interesting and profitable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965-66

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates "C" for the financial year ending March 31, 1966, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement which I am sure will be of interest to the Members of the House. As the House is aware, the automotive plan is designed to achieve a substantial expansion in production and employment in Canada and to promote improved efficiency in the automotive industries. Under the plan production in Canada will increase by several hundred million dollars annually and employment in the industry will grow accordingly. In this regard, during the year in which the previous automotive plan was in effect employment in the automotive industries increased by nearly 10,000 workers. Under the current plan the motor vehicle manufacturers and many parts manufacturers have already announced major expansion plans.
Organized labour and the automobile and automobile parts industries have welcomed the plan as a bold and constructive measure which is in the national interest. A major economic expansion of this nature, however, is bound to result in certain transitional adjustments for some workers and firms. In such cases there may be a temporary lay-off of workers while the company re-equips. There will be instances where firms will find it necessary to expand or re-equip their facilities to produce in greater volume and in the most efficient manner.
While such adjustments will take place in the context of very substantial growth in the industry, the Government believes that assistance should be provided to those who may be affected by the adjustment process in order to ease possible interim adverse effects. As a result the Government proposes to implement a program of transitional adjustment assistance for workers and firms in the automotive products industries. My colleague the Minister of Labour immediately following will be outlining the measures which the Government proposes to implement for workers in this industry. I would like to outline the program of adjustment assistance for firms.
The automotive plan offers new opportunities to Canadian automotive parts manufacturers for expanded production, rationalization of output and reduced costs. If Canadian parts makers are to take advantage of the plan, they must be increasingly competitive and flexible in their operations. In some instances they will be asked by their customers to make new products or to manufacture existing components on an expanded scale and more efficiently. As a result many Canadian parts makers will have to engage in substantial re-equipment and expansion programs to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the plan. In addition, increased working capital will be required in order to operate at expanded levels.
The Government wishes to ensure that every automotive products manufacturer who is energetic and shows initiative will have the opportunity to participate in the plan and is not prevented from doing so by an inability to acquire sufficient capital to accomplish
2908	COMMONS
Assistance to Auto Workers these objectives. As a result the Government is proposing to make loans available to those automotive products producers who have a reasonable prospect of profitable operation but who otherwise would be prevented from doing so through lack of financing. These loans will be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion, or expansion of land, building, equipment, facilities or machinery and for use as working capital. They will carry an interest rate of 6 per cent and would be repayable over not more than 20 years for land and buildings and 10 years for other purposes.
A special fund will be set up for the purpose of making these loans, and the administration of this program will be the responsibility of an adjustment assistance board which is being set up specifically for this purpose. The Industrial Development Bank will be cooperating with the board and will be responsible for the day to day administration of the loans which are made under the program. Firms manufacturing the automotive products covered by the automotive plan will be eligible for the loans, except for companies which manufacture automobiles or firms affiliated with automobile manufactures.
The Government feels that this transitional assistance program for firms in the automotive products industry will make a real contribution to assisting firms, especially the smaller ones, to adjust to and take advantage of the many opportunities for expansion and efficiency provided by the automotive plan.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would save the time of the House if my colleague the Minister of Labour could be heard on the complementary labour aspects of this program before general comments are offered.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I think we should follow the order of procedure whereby one Minister makes an announcement regarding one phase of a policy and we comment on that at once, rather than having two statements and amalgamating our comments in respect of both phases of the policy.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, the House has heard an interesting announcement from the Minister of Industry, but it is just another case of this Government having been prodded by the Canadian car and car parts manufacturers to the point that they have had to do something. The Canadian car parts manufacturers were put in such a terri-
[Mr. Drury.)
DEBATES	June 28, 1965
ble position that something had to be done to help them survive. This is another case where this Government proposed legislation in a matter dealing with the United States Government but forgot about the industries and people who would be displaced until this fact was brought to their attention. They now come forward with recommendations regarding steps to bail these people out. If, Mr. Speaker, they had first of all removed the 11 per cent sales tax, the Government would have bailed these people out of their difficulties.
The Minister speaks of adjustments, more loans, and an adjustment assistance board. We are getting such a conglomeration of loan boards and assistance boards from this Government today that we hardly know where we are. We have an Industrial Development Bank which was set up to take care of industry and to assist them in manufacturing; but no, the Government have to get mixed up with another board. They leave the Industrial Development Bank out of the picture, although the Minister did say that they were being brought into it to some extent.
The Minister mentioned an interest rate of 6 per cent on these loans. This is altogether too high an interest rate, in that people in this type of business do not make a sufficient return to be able to pay it. So I say, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this is another hodgepodge, another means by which to bail these people out.


Mr. Nielsen:: Fumbling and bumbling.


Alfred Dryden Hales: We hope this effort, such as it is, is not too late. I am sure the Minister of Labour will say something about displaced persons, because in Windsor today another 500 workers are being laid off, and 1,500 will be laid off by the end of July. This is the situation confronting us as a result of the Canada-U.S. car treaty in which this Government involved the country.


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the Minister of Industry that this is such an important and complicated statement that really we should also hear the Minister of Labour, since the two announcements are complementary to each other. I wonder whether I could have your indulgence to withhold my comments until we have heard from the Minister of Labour.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. Member for Danforth and the House Leader for the Conservative Opposition that these two announce-
June 28. 1965	COMMONS
ments should have been made together because they are interrelated.
The announcement which has just been made concerns a most important issue and is a statement of the policy of the Government as far as the automotive industry and the recent arrangements made with the United States are concerned. If in the first place the Government had been concerned with the consumers of automobiles instead of passing the benefits of this agreement over to the manufacturers of automobiles, we would have had a far different situation today.
Because the benefit of this agreement has gone to the manufacturers of automobiles the Government is now forced to come to the assistance of the automotive parts manufacturers to provide the capital they need to be able to expand. It seems to me that it is a principle of enterprise that if you have a market for the product you are intending to manufacture there should not be any trouble in raising the money required in order to build your factory. But the approach of this Government has been a backward one from the very beginning, and they are now going backward again by way of taking Government money to provide for development of a parts manufacturing program.
What is wrong with our own Canadian investment dollar? Why cannot this money be found on the private market from people with savings and through the credit facilities of the tremendous corporations who are concerned in each case? In this way they could get the money from the investment and savings of Canadian people without requiring the Government to provide this capital.
It seems to me that the mistake made in policy in the first instance is now being repeated in order to give the manufacturers of automotive spare parts the same advantage that was given to automobile manufacturers. This is a complete mistake of policy, and is the kind of thing that is pushing us further and further into the situation where Government capital has to be provided to facilitate the expansion of our own industries. We are not just assisting the slide of the country into Government or state control; we are galloping headlong into it.
For those reasons I think this is a complete mistake of policy, and a case of one wrong perpetuating another. I regret that the Government has put itself into the position where it has to adopt this policy in order to protect the automotive parts manufacturers.
DEBATES	2909
Assistance to Auto Workers [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a rather strange paradox in this country: the Canadian government borrows more and more, and thereby lends more and more. It is a strange paradox to see a government find ways to lend money while it is deep in debt. Why? Because laws have been passed to foster the growth of the Canadian automobile industry and it has become obvious that such laws were passed hastily and without sufficient study; new laws now have to be passed in an attempt to rescue certain related sectors which were affected by the previous legislation.
In a word, what we have are specialists and experts in certain fields who suggest the government pass laws which can be good for some areas, but which can create difficulties for other areas of the Canadian economy.
That is exactly what we have today. There has been too great a desire to help big companies. Perhaps debts had been incurred with the big automobile corporations. They were assisted and we are now faced with a deplorable situation, which arises from the fact that the government, with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in the lead, has not yet understood the real problem facing our present economic system.
In my opinion there is too great a tendency to finance production and too little desire to put at the disposal of the consumer the necessary purchasing power to absorb production. As a result, people on both sides of the fence, whether producer or consumer, are forced to borrow. Now, as the government has already borrowed considerably there is hardly any capital available and, today, the government is obliged to lend once more to private enterprise. This means that on both sides, producer as well as consumer, the situation is once more deplorable. In fact, the producer has to borrow from the government to finance his production, while the consumer, that is the buyer, has to go to finance companies to borrow again and again, in order to pay for production that has already been financed by means of loans.
Are we not heading for a vicious circle? Producers are borrowing in order to produce and consumers are borrowing to buy products which borrowing helped to produce. This is obviously a vicious circle and we do not know how to get out of it.
I am saying to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), who seems determined to take all kinds of steps to assist the various sec-
June 28< 1965

Assistance to Auto Workers tors of the economy, that there is but one solution to get the economy out of the crisis, to end unemployment and to help designated areas; that can only be done if the consumer has the money he needs to buy what is produced.
When the consumer buys the production without borrowing, he finances production itself without the government constantly having to make loans to the producer.
Let us see to it that the consumer has the necessary purchasing power because he will then be able to finance production without everybody getting into debt, that is the government, the producer and the consumer who needs the products.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry has stated, the major expansion that will result from the Canada-United States automotive agreement will greatly increase employment in Canada. This expansion will involve a considerable reorganization of production with some consequent lay-offs of workers. These workers should not be asked to bear the entire financial burden of their unemployment. Because the economy as a whole will benefit from the agreement, it is reasonable that the people of Canada and the automotive companies assist the workers in meeting their adjustment problems.
I wish to announce the details of the Government's transitional assistance benefit program, developed for such workers. This program will provide assistance benefits ranging from 62 per cent to 75 per cent of the worker's weekly pay depending on the number of his dependants, provided this benefit does not exceed 65 per cent of average weekly wages and salaries in the motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts industries, which currently amounts to close to $75.
The duration of benefit is based on the length of employment in the automotive and parts industries. It can be a maximum of a year and a half for workers completing training programs. To be eligible, a worker must have at least 30 weeks of employment in the last 52 weeks prior to lay-off, which will entitle him to four weeks of benefit, with an additional week of benefit for every week of employment in excess of 30 weeks up to 26 weeks of benefit. For workers with more than 52 weeks of employment, a week of benefit will be received for every two weeks of employment up to a maximum of 52 weeks of benefit. To qualify for transi-
[Mr. Gr6goire.l
tional assistance benefit or TAB payments, a worker must also be qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Some of the workers laid off in these industries would normally be eligible for supplementary unemployment benefits. SUB is a scheme of unemployment benefits provided for in the labour-management agreements of the major motor vehicle companies and in a few of the motor vehicle parts companies. Under the terms of SUB plans, SUB payments would not be made if the transitional benefit together with unemployment insurance equalled or exceeded 62 per cent of the worker's pay plus a maximum of $6 for dependants. In these instances, under the TAB plan, the companies would be relieved from paying SUB benefits to their workers. It is the Government's view, however, that the companies, which will be receiving direct financial benefits under the automotive agreement, should meet part of the financial burden of the lay-offs. Accordingly companies with SUB plans will be asked to contribute to the TAB fund an amount equivalent to what they would have been required to pay to workers eligible for SUB benefits.
The payment of TAB benefits to workers eligible for SUB is conditional on such payments into the TAB fund by those companies having SUB plans. This provision would not affect workers who are employed in companies with SUB pirns, but who themselves are not eligible for SUB. I am glad to educate hon. Members in trade union terminology. These workers would receive transitional assistance benefits according to their entitlement.
The determination of whether workers laid off in the industry are eligible for TAB will be made by the adjustment assistance board. Workers will be eligible if the board finds that a significant number or proportion of the workers of a firm or plant will be laid off for a period of at least 30 days and that the lay-off was caused by a termination or significant decrease of production or activity arising from the operation of the Canada-United States automotive agreement.
Parliamentary approval will be sought for this program through an item in the amount of $5 million included in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: If the Minister of Labour went to Washington to bring in this plan, he should have stayed at home. I recall that on May 11, when he spoke in
June 28. 1965

this House, he said that whatever programs are available for displaced workers in this country, they are equivalent to what is provided in the United States under similar circumstances. Evidently the Minister has swallowed himself, or tried to swallow himself, by making this trip to the United States. What does he come back with, or at least what does he propose for us? In the United States I understand the workers in this industry who are displaced as a result of this United States-Canada agreement will receive up to $102 per week during the period of time they are laid off. We are told now the workers here will receive 65 per cent of their average weekly wage and the benefit will not exceed that amount.
The SUB plans, Mr. Speaker, have been in existence throughout Canada in this industry, and far exceed 65 per cent of the total take home pay while workers are employed. This program is certainly going to bring down the benefits to workers who are laid off in comparison with what they would have received under the SUB plan. The Minister says that in some instances the industry must contribute the same amount to this new TAB plan, as he calls it, as they contribute to the SUB plan, yet benefits to the workers are going to be a great deal less.
I think this program is far from satisfactory for the workers who are to be laid off as a direct result of an agreement this Government has signed with the United States, and which is being continued at the expense of the Canadian workers.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to realize, first of all, that we are establishing an important principle here, one which we have requested for a number of months; namely, that where workers suffer dislocation as a result of conditions beyond their control they should not be asked to bear the burden of it. I think we are accepting that principle in this proposal. It is important also to note that those of us on this side of the House who foresaw many of these difficulties some months ago were laughed at and somewhat downgraded by the Government. Time has proven that these dislocations do take place and some assistance is necessary.
Evidently this program will become known as the TAB plan. I think it is important for us to try to establish at some stage just who is going to pick up the tab for the TAB plan. An analysis of the statement made today makes it rather obvious that it is the Cana-

Assistance to Auto Workers dian worker who is going to pick up the major portion of the tab. The first joker in the plan is that the payments are subject to a ceiling of 65 per cent of the average wage of workers in the trade as a whole, so the worker is automatically placed at a disadvantage in that regard. There are supplementary benefits, Mr. Speaker, but with the joker of a 65 per cent upper limit the worker is already at a disadvantage, more particularly as it affects these benefits.
It is for this reason I think the Minister will have difficulty with the various labour unions. Benefits are only going to be paid to the workers in those industries who agree to contribute into the TAB plan the payments they would have made into the SUB plan. Having given over $50 million in tax benefits, we now want to go back to the industry and say "You must take part of your social responsibility for this, and we would like you to agree to make this payment into the fund."
It seems to me there is a danger here that this is going to be the joker in the plan which will enable some of these companies to escape their responsibility. Really, on analysis, it is nothing but a substitution of the supplementary unemployment benefits for the benefits under the Government plan, with a slightly larger benefit for those who are eligible.
There are some advantages to the plan, but there are grave disadvantages. The United States workers are still eligible for benefits up to 85 per cent, so we are still considerably below what they are receiving in the United States. I had hoped there would have been some mention of a mobility clause which would enable these people to move around, but the statement is absolutely devoid of any such reference.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, it seems that while we have accepted a principle, there are grave deficiencies in it which I think will make it unacceptable to most of the organized trade unions in this field. As I have said, having given $50 million to the companies we are now going to ask them to come back in and make these payments and assume some of the responsibility. Finally, we are still leaving the Canadian workers considerably behind in benefits received as compared with United States workers.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: No, no.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), on behalf of this group I would like to comment briefly on the
June 28>
1965

Assistance to Auto Workers announcement made by the Minister of Labour. First of all, I must say that the announcement sounded something like a soap ad with its reference to SUB's and TAB'S, and possibly this is about the extent to which it is going to be acceptable.
I do not see why we do not devise a policy that will take care of these dislocations, that will have something concrete in it so that when these dislocations occur, whether it be in the railway industry or other industries across the country, we shall have some legislation that is comprehensive and intelligently put together in order that matters like this can be handled when the need arises, without coming to Parliament with a little bit of this, a little bit of that and a little bit of something else. The time has come when we should have some comprehensive legislation in this regard.
With respect to the limitations, I notice in the minister's statement there is discrimination against those individuals who have not been long employed by a company. I do not know what would make anybody believe that a person who has been employed by a company for a short time is richer than one who has been employed for a good many years, but according to the specifications laid out in the Minister's statement we do find this discrimination.
I fail to see why one should want to discriminate against an individual who has been only a short time with a company. He will be just as much out of work as the fellow who has been with the company a long time, and likely he will have more debt and more bills to meet.
In connection with the 65 per cent benefit figure, I believe this will encourage individuals who get only that amount to go out and moonlight. They will take employment in other sections of our economy, such as in the supermarkets and so on after ten o'clock, or they will become salesmen. In effect they will be taking jobs away from other people; therefore we will not be helping the economy to the extent that the Minister forecasts. It is a hoax, so far as I can see.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, one can easily realize, in reading the second statement, that there is something wrong in this whole thing, as there is a glaring inconsistency between both.
In the first statement, on the first page, the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) says;

In such cases there may be a temporary lay-off of workers while the company re-equips. There will be instances where firms will find it necessary to expand or re-equip their facilities to produce in greater volume and in the most efficient manner.
In his statement the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) said the opposite. He said that the worker will benefit from those advantages on one condition, namely that he will be laid off for a period of at least 30 days and that the lay-off will cause a termination or a significant decrease of production or other activity arising from the operation of the agreement.
In one case it is a question of equipment conversion to increase production, but the Minister of Labour said the exact opposite when he stated:
When such layoffs are due to a stoppage or an important decrease in production.
The Minister of Labour had more vision than the Minister of Industry and Defence Production. He realized that the trade agreement on the automobile industry would not only fail to favour the production of automobile parts, but would cause a decrease in the production of such automobile parts in Canada. That is why he stated:
Provided such layoffs are due to a stoppage or an important decrease in production. In such cases only, will workers be helped by the Minister of Labour's new plan.
Now, if employees are laid-off under the circumstances mentioned by the Minister of Industry and Defence Production, in other words, if they are laid-off temporarily during equipment conversion they will not participate in the plan suggested by the Minister of Labour, because the latter refers "to layoffs caused by abandonment of, or a great decrease in, production".
There is contradiction, or else the intention is that neither of the plans will have any effect and that the workers will not be able to profit by them.
It is high time, nevertheless, that members of the Cabinet fall in agreement and take the same decisions instead of contradictory decisions such as we have seen today, in less than one hour, by two members of the same government and of the same Cabinet, two ministers who are supposed to co-operate and who make contradictory statements.
One thing remains: according to the first statement, it is intended to allow the government to lend money to automobile producers, so that the latter may produce certain things which the consumers will have to borrow to buy. Since a loan has already been obtained
June 28, 1965

to manufacture those things another loan will have to be obtained to buy them.
On the other hand, the Minister of Labour intends to set up a benefit system for workers who are laid off because there is no more work for them since foreign producers have been allowed to invade and take over the domestic market.
Who will profit? The consumer? No, he pays the very same price for his car. Then who? Large automobile producers who are subsidiaries of American corporations while small Canadian producers of automotive parts will have their production cut off because of the agreements passed.
I think it is high time for this government to revise its position and instead of taking off tariff and taxes for large corporations only, they should take them off for all Canadian consumers and see to it that Canadian consumers have a sufficient and necessary purchasing power to buy Canadian automobiles and then our problems will be settled.
Let us stop administering and governing in terms of large foreign capital interests in most cases, or in terms of large finance corporations who will happily finance automobiles; let us legislate for the Canadian people by placing in their hands the purchasing power they need to buy automobiles without always going into debt. That is the only solution to the problem now facing us and we hope that the government will take it into consideration.




Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of development grants to assist the establishment of new manufacturing or processing facilities and the expansion of existing manufacturing or processing facilities in order to improve industrial employment opportunities in designated areas in Canada; for this purpose to establish in the Consolidated Revenue Fund an area development account to which shall be credited an initial amount of fifty million dollars; and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act concerning the definition of a manufacturing or processing business and the application of section 71A of that Act in any case where a development grant has been authorized to be paid under the said measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents and provide for the payment of the expenses of witnesses appearing before these boards; to provide that the Air Transport Board shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members; to provide that members of the Board shall be appointed for a term not exceeding ten years and to provide for retirement of members of the Board appointed after the coming into force of the proposed measure at seventy years of age; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Have any representations been made to the federal government concerning the possible use for industrial purposes of land which is now under the control of the United States navy at Argentia, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, who submitted these representations and what were their nature?
3.	What reply did the federal government give to any such representations?
4.	Has any approach been made to the United States government concerning the future use of the land in question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	No direct representations.
2.	Mr. E. E. Thoms, President, Victory Lodge 1188 of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, submitted a brief to Premier Smallwood and sent a copy to the Prime Minister. This brief recommended that the Federal Government consult with the United States Government and request that a portion of Argentia harbour be passed over to civilian industry in order to increase local employment.
3.	The representations were made directly to Premier Smallwood; a copy was forwarded

June 28, 1965
Questions
to the Prime Minister's office apparently for information only and no reply was necessary.
4.	The Federal Government maintains close contact with the United States Government regarding the future of its bases in Newfoundland. The U.S. Government has a treaty right to the use of the land in question at Argentia and moreover, U.S. officials advise us that their government still requires this land. While there has been some reduction in the number of the American personnel at Argentia, a substantial number will remain and there should be little decrease in the employment of Canadians. It must also be remembered that the North Sydney-Argentia ferry is due to come into operation in the spring of 1967 and that employment in the construction of the docks and a connecting road to the trans-Canada highway is already a significant factor in the economy of this area.
In addition to the information supplied by the Atlantic Development Board noted above, Mr. Richard Cashin, Member of Parliament for Saint John's West has discussed this matter with the Minister of Transport on several occasions.


CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH ENERGY NUCLEAR PHYSICS LABORATORY
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government now giving consideration to the proposal of the Canadian Association of Physicists made in 1956 and 1957, that Canada construct a high energy nuclear physics laboratory centred on a high energy particle accelerator, in Canada and, if not, what were the reasons for refusing this proposal of the Canadian Association of Physicists?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Subsequent to the brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Physicists to the chairman of the Committee of the Privy Council on Scientific and Industrial Research in October 1958, the National Research Council has not been aware of any specific proposal for the construction of a high energy nuclear physics laboratory. In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, there is no present plan to implement the brief of the Canadian Association of Physicists. Although the desirability of giving maximum possible support to physics is recognized, obligations to support other branches of science must also be taken into account. With the rapid expansion of universities and a plan for corresponding rapid expansion in the Council's program for scholarships and grants in aid of research in the next few years, it
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
is not considered possible at the present time to embark on a project of such magnitude. General support of physics in various fields in universities across the country including support for several medium energy laboratories is considered to be the most desirable way of utilizing available resources.


C.N.R. EXPENDITURES ON NEWS AGENT SERVICES
Mr. Laprise: What sum has Canadian National spent annually over the last ten years on the news agents service (a) for the whole network, and (b) for the section from Quebec to Cochrane?


Mr. Jean Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
News agent service on Canadian National trains has been provided by a concessionaire known as Canada Railway News Company under a contract with the railway.


U.S. FUNDS OBTAINED BY CANADIAN BANKS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Does Canada exercise any control over American funds which are obtained on the market by New York agencies of Canadian banks, and, if so, by what means?
2.	Does either the Dominion Bureau of Statistics or the Bank of Canada maintain records relating to such transactions?
3.	Has any study been undertaken to ascertain the effects of these transactions upon Canada or upon international money markets?
4.	Has any study been undertaken to determine Canada's role in the Euro-dollar market?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Canada does not exercise specific control over the operation of Canadian banks' New York agencies, but these agencies like any other branches of Canadian banks must comply with the provisions of the Bank Act. Under section 63 of the Bank Act, the Inspector General of Banks is required to satisfy himself that the financial condition of each bank is sound, and under the provisions of section 71(4) each bank is required to maintain adequate reserves against liabilities payable in foreign currencies.
In February this year guidelines were issued to all U.S. banks by the U.S. government as part of its program to improve the U.S. balance of payments position. In order to provide assurance that the foreign currency operations of our banks would not be inconsistent with these objectives, the Canadian government has requested all chartered banks to conduct their foreign currency operations
June 28. 1965

in such a way that the net position of their head offices and Canadian branches vis-a-vis residents of the United States is not reduced below the position which existed on December 31, 1964.
2.	Separate statistics on New York agencies are not maintained by the government or the Bank of Canada. However, over-all statistics of the operations of Canadian banks in foreign currencies have been maintained over many years. More detail statistics have been collected over the last two years.
3.	Changes in the statistics of our banks' position in foreign currencies are continually under review by the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada.
4.	The statistics mentioned in 3 above include information on the Euro-dollar market. No formal study has been prepared by Canada but Canadian representatives have participated in international discussions concerning the Euro-dollar market.


SATURDAY NIGHT HOCKEY BROADCASTS
Mr. Dube: 1.	Has the C.B.C. at any time attempted to obtain television rights for the complete Saturday night games during the N.H.L.'s regular season?
2.	If so, what is the name of the advertising agency holding television rights with respect to these games?
3.	What reasons did this agency put forward to explain its refusal to allow broadcasting of these games in their entirety, if such was the case?
4.	How popular are these television hockey game broadcasts, according to "Nielsen's Television Index"?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Two years ago an agreement was reached which resulted in the Corporation carrying an additional half hour of television time of the regular N.H.L. Saturday night games. This allows the showing of the highlights of the play of the first period prior to air time. The Corporation feels that Saturday evening "prime time" viewing should contain more variety of program subject material than just hockey. Hockey fans receive over an hour and a half of their favourite sport.
Questions
Other viewers who may not appreciate hockey as much, have other fare presented for their interest and enjoyment. This practice of sharing Saturday evening television programming among viewers of different tastes and interests has been working very well. Naturally, keen hockey fans would like the whole game; but there are many other viewers to consider and the C.B.C. feels it has struck a fair balance in its Saturday evening programming having the total audience in mind.
2.	In Canada, the MacLaren Advertising Agency holds the television rights to N.H.L. games.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	During the season, Saturday night Hockey Telecasts are the most popular programs on the air according to the Nielsen ratings.


LEASING OF MOTOR VEHICLES, KEJTMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Coates: 1.	What were the results of the tender call by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the leasing of eleven motor vehicles in connection with the new national park at Kejimkujik?
2.	How many tenders were received, what were the names of the tenderers and the prices submitted by each?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Questions


FEDERAL GRANTS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Mather: What, by name and in dollars, are the federal grants and/or other payments made to British Columbia?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The latest Public Accounts of Canada show payments to the Government of the Province of British Columbia of amounts which are listed below. These payments are in respect of conditional and unconditional grant programs and miscellaneous special projects and relate to the fiscal
year 1963-64.
(in thousands of dollars)
Statutory subsidies	1,672
50% Share of the Income Tax
on Certain Utilities	501
Agricultural Lime Assistance	71
Farm Labour Agreements	9
Fright Assistance to the Royal Winter Fair	2
4-H Clubs	8
ARDA	103
Hospital Construction	881
General Public Health	1,325
Tuberculosis Control	248
Mental Health	581
Professional Training	131
Cancer Control	282
Public Health Research	144
Medical Rehabilitation and
Crippled Children	235
Child and Maternal Health	81
Vital Statistics Fees	7
Hospital Insurance	33,687
Old Age Assistance	2,782
Blind Persons Allowances	336
Disabled Persons Allowances	930
Unemployment Assistance	16,263
Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons 17 National Welfare Grants	20
Welfare Assistance, etc., to
Immigrants	2
Fitness and Amateur Sport	11
Student Aid	30
Apprenticeship Training	555
Vocational High School Training 240 Technician Training	70
Trade and Occupational Training	682
(in thousands of dollars)
Training in Co-operation with
Industry	15
Training of the Unemployed	644
Training of Disabled Persons	15
Technical Teachers, etc., Training	15
Technical Correspondence Courses	1
Capital Assistance-Technical
Schools	6,777
Language Instruction of Immigrants 9 Trans-Canada Highway	8,475
Railway Grade Crossing Fund	1,159
Fort St. John, diversion of airport road	10
Victoria-highway diversion due to runway extension	6
Mount Revelstoke National Park- surveying and road construction	82
Mile 35.5 Alaska Highwayremoval of rubble from river-bed adjacent to piers of the Peace River Bridge	27
Forest Inventories	485
Reforestation	40
Forest Fire Protection	516
Forest Access Roads	790
Okanagan Flood Control	38
Camp Grounds and Picnic Areas 48 Roads to Resources	1,024
Emergency Measures	532
Municipal Winter Works
Incentive Program	3,466
Payment to British Columbia
Research Council	33
86,113


CLANDEBOYE INDIAN AGENCY EXPENDITURES
Mr. Slogan: 1.	What are the final figures of expenditures for each band in the Clandeboye Indian Agency for 1964-65 and what are the estimated expenditures for the year 1965-66?
2.	What is the breakdown for these expenditures?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Treasury records of expenditures are not maintained separately by band or reserve. However, the attached tables show expenditures as compiled from agency records.

June 28. 1965
Questions


EXPENDITURES IN CLANDEBOYE AGENCY-1964-65
[Stage Direction]
Reserve	Roads and Bridges	Indian Housing	School Repairs and Maintenance	Schools- New Construction	Welfare Assistance	Total*	s	t	t	s	$Brokenhead	
Fort Alexander	
Little Black River	
Hollow Water	
Bloodvein	
Berens River	
Little Grand Rapids	
Roseau River	
1,405.00 	
23,995.72 	
1,997.25 	
153.00 	
665.00 	
2,220.97 	
Nil 	
5,367.36	9.269.00 24,111.49 5.400.00 5,860.36 3.534.00 7.420.00 8.645.00 6.951.00	2.352.00 8,352.77 694.00 334.00 176.00 1.387.00 122.43 551.00	Nil 15.500.00 Nil Nil 48.736.00 Nil Nil Nil	10,060.84 87,945.77 4,850.51 18,903.00 9,346.00 23,726.35 20,146.60 16,004.24	23,086.84 159,905.75 12,941.76 25,250.36 62,457.00 34,754.32 28,914.03 28,873.60Total	
35,804.30	71,190.85	13,969.20	64,236.00	190,982.71	376,183.66

[Stage Direction]
School	Schools-
Roads and Indian Repairs and New	Welfare
Reserve	Bridges Housing Maintenance Construction Assistance Total
s	*	t	s	s	sBrokenhead	
5,500.00	6,253.80	3,500.00	Nil	12,896.00	28,149.80Fort Alexander	
5,690.00	21,155.47	9,000.00	Nil	107,620.00	143,465.47Little Black River	
2,500.00	2,512.09	1,500.00	Nil	7,836.00	14,348.09Hollow Water	
1,000.00	2.022.37	3,000.00	Nil	23,572.00	29,594.37Bloodvein	
1,000.00	6,872.88	1,580.00	Nil	12,136.00	21,588.88Berens River	
2,400.00	7,072.88	5,000.00	Nil	27,844.00	42,316.88Little Grand Rapids	
1,300.00	11,555.75	1,500.00	Nil	29,976.00	44,331.75Roseau River	
6,000.00	10,567.59	2,400.00	Nil	19,328.00	38,295.59Total	
25,390.00	68,012.83	27,480.00 Nil 241,208.00	362,090.83

Mr. Forbes: Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to make an upward adjustment in pensions to federal superannuated persons, in the near future, commensurate with the increased cost of living?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The intention of the Government was set forth in the statement by the right hon. Prime Minister on May 3, 1965 as recorded in Hansard at pages 837 and 838.


C.B.C.-MATINEE HIGHLIGHTS PROGRAM
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Did one or more C.B.C. radio stations offer to their audience on the "Matinee Highlights" program of May 29, 1965, an interview during which a medical doctor or other person discussed a contraceptive device made of plastic material?
2.	Has the CB.C. regulations based on the Criminal Code governing the content of such programs and, if so, what are the terms of such regulations?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, this was an interview with Dr. Jack Lippus, who is Associate Professor of Obstet-

rics and Gynaecology at the Medical School of the State University of New York.
2.	The C.B.C. observes the Radio (AM) Broadcasting Regulations of the Board of Broadcast Governors. The program item referred to is covered under Section 5, subsection 1(e) which reads as follows: "No station or network operator shall broadcast any program on the subject of birth control unless that program is presented in a manner appropriate to the medium of broadcasting".


C.N.R.-TICKET QUOTATIONS IN U.S. FUNDS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the C.N.R. place an advertisement in the May 29 edition of the Windsor Star advertising a special summer excursion to Niagara Falls with ticket prices payable in United States funds and available for purchase at offices in Windsor, Ontario?
2.	Is it the usual practice of the C.NJR. to sell tickets and set out fares for journeys in Canada based on the currency of another country?
3.	What great advantage accrues to the CNR. to set out its fares in United States funds.


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
June 28, 1965

1.	Yes.
2.	No. The advertisement was prepared for use in United States newspapers. A similar ad was scheduled to appear in the Windsor Star quoting Canadian funds. However, the ad that appeared inadvertently quoted United States dollars.
3.	None.


PLAN FOR INTEGRATION OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is there In existence an overall plan for the Integration of the Armed Forces?
2.	If so, when was such plan completed and when will it be published?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The over-all concepts of integration can be found on pages 18 and 19 of the White Paper on Defence issued in March 1964.
2. The first stage, integration of the Armed Forces of Canada under a single Chief of Defence Staff and a single Defence Staff, has been completed. Certain aspects of unification, e.g. recruiting, construction engineering, etc., have been completed and others are close to completion. The new command system has been announced and each field commander is being given a planning staff to assist him in creating the specialized structure of his particular command. The end objective of a single service is firm.


GORDON DEWAR-C.B.C. COMMENTATOR
Mr. Nugent: Was Gordon Dewar of Ottawa, who from time to time, acted as a commentator on the C.B.C. removed from the C.B.C.'s (acceptable commentators list) and. If so, for what reason?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the question assumes a list which does not exist. Mr. Dewar's occasional employment by the C.B.C. remains on the same basis as other freelance commentators.


AIRPORT RUNWAYS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What length of runways are required to accommodate the following aircraft (a) D.C. 8 (b) D.C. 9 (c) Boeing 707?
2.	What airports In Canada (civil or military) are capable of accommodating the above listed aircraft?
3.	What airports In Canada are under current consideration to be altered to accommodate these aircraft?
4.	What work would be necessary In order to make the London, Ontario airport a satisfactory alternate airport for planes destined to Malton airport?
Questions


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The
length of runways required for any of these aircraft is dependent on a number of factors involving stage lengths, operating weights, altitude of the airport and meteorological conditions. In general terms, however, the minimum runway lengths for D.C. 8 and 707 aircraft on domestic services varies from 7000'-8000' and up to 13000' for aircraft on international service. The minimum acceptable for a D.C. 9 is expected to vary between 5000'-6000' and up to 9000' on a long stage length.
2. Based on the runway length point of view the following airports in Canada are capable of accommodating these three types of aircraft in varying degrees of load factors and frequency of service. In some cases, however, bearing capacities may be in question since a requirement to operate aircraft of these types has not yet developed at all locations.
Civil	Military
Abbotsford	Comox
Vancouver	Cold Lake
Calgary	Chatham
Edmonton	Bagotville
Saskatoon	Portage
Winnipeg	Summerside
Toronto	Gimli
Ottawa	Moose Jaw
Windsor	Trenton
Montreal	Namao
Halifax	Shearwater
Gander	Greenwood
Torbay	St. Hubert
Goose Bay	Cartierville
Frobisher	Downsview
North Bay	Argentia (USN)
Whitehorse Churchill	Stephenville (USAF)
On the same basis	as above the following
airports in Canada	are capable of accommodating the D.C. 9	in varying degrees of
load factors and frequency of service.	
Victoria	Prince Rupert
Brandon	Quesnel
Fort McMurray	Earlton
Fort Nelson	Forestville
Fort Smith	Fort Chimo
Fort St. John	Fredericton
Grande Prairie	Hamilton
Kamloops	Lakehead
Kelowna	London
Lethbridge	Moncton
Penticton	Mont Joli
Prince George	Muskoka

June 28, 1965
Quebec La Tuque Regina
Rivers (Military) Sandspit Terrace The Pas Thompson Watson Lake Williams Lake Yellowknife Val d'Or (Military) Rouyn
Questions Sudbury Killaloe Charlottetown Riviere du Loup Saint John, N.B. Sault Ste. Marie Sept lies Sherbrooke Sydney Timmins Trois Rivieres Wiarton Yarmouth
3.	Windsor (Ontario) airport is currently under consideration for alteration to accommodate D.C. 8 aircraft.
The ultimate operational requirements of the D.C. 9 have not yet been firmly established and it is too early to state what alterations will be required, although it is expected that such operational requirements will not involve significant changes in the airports they will serve.
4.	No work is required at London, Ontario airport to accommodate aircraft on an alternate basis on the basis on which the flights destined for Toronto are now planned and operated.


PENSIONS TO FORMER ARMED FORCES MEMBERS
Mr. Winch: 1.	How many ex-Armed Service and ex-clvilian Armed Service employees were granted pensions in the period 1960 to 1964 inclusive?
2.	How many applications for a pension were refused?
3.	Were any deserters from the Armed Forces granted pensions and, if so, how many?
4.	How many applicants for pension, with honourable discharge, were turned down in the aforementioned period?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. During the period of 1960 to 1964, 7,254 pensions and annuities became payable to former members of the regular forces and 3,303 annuities were authorized for former civilian employees of the Department of National Defence.
2.	Pensions under the Defence Services Pension Contribution Act and annuities under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act were not subject to application by the individual. Payment is mandatory to a member of the forces who qualifies for pension or annuity in accordance with the provisions of the act applicable in his case.
3.	No deserters from the armed forces were granted pensions or annuities.
4.	This question is answered at 2.
[Mr. Cantin.l


RESEARCH INTO AUTOMOBILE SAFETY
Mr. Grafftey: Is the National Research Council conducting any kind of research regarding automobile safety and is it recommending safety devices to be adopted by the automobile industry and, if so, is the Council establishing car and tire construction standards and specifications for safety purposes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The National Research Council is investigating factors which may cause deterioration of the textile components of automobile and truck seat belts.
The National Research Council does not recommend or approve devices to be adopted by industry nor is it establishing car and tire construction standards and specifications for safety purposes.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Martineau: 1.	At what point did the consumer price index stand at mid-May 1965?
2.	Has this point been exceeded in the past and, if so, when?
3.	At what point did the consumer price index stand at the following dates (a) mid-May 1964 (b) mid-May 1963 (c) mid-May 1962?
4.	Has the government been advised by its economists and/or economic forecasters or other experts to expect further rises in the cost of living within the next 12 months and, If so, does the government intend to take any measures to stabilize the cost of living and, what are these measures?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The consumer price index at mid-May 1965 stood at 138.0 (1949= 100).
2.	No.
3.	(a) 135.0 (b) 132.3 (c) 130.1
4.	The government at all times follows closely developments in the economy, including price developments. It is the view of the government that the price situation at the present time remains reasonably stable, and in keeping with the general expectations indicated in the budget speech of April 26, 1965 (Hansard, page 433). The price movements shown in the answer to part 3 of this question compare favourably with those observed in all other advanced countries of the free world, the increase being less than all major countries, with the exception of the United States.


ASSINTBOINE RIVER EROSION
Mr. Enns: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture received any complaints from farmers along the Assiniboine River, or from municipal councils regarding the severe erosion due to high spring river levels?
June 28, 1965

2.	Has the government any plans to straighten the river channel at specific points so as to reduce and/or eliminate the threat to entire farm yards?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No official complaints have been received by the Department. Officials of one rural municipality have discussed the problem with officials of P.F.R.A. at the time of dike overtopping during the spring breakup in 1965.
2. The . government is continuing its program of dike and channel maintenance on the Assiniboine River. No program of channel straightening is being considered at present in view of the construction of the Portage diversion and the Shellmouth Reservoir projects, which will provide much greater control of the Assiniboine River.


MAIL TRANSPORT. HAMILTON-TORONTO
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What vehicles are presently used to transport mall from Hamilton to Toronto?
2.	Has consideration been given to transporting mall by autobus between the daytime despatches now scheduled?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1.	The vehicles presently used to transport mail from Hamilton to Toronto are trucks under exclusive contract to carry mail only. They leave Hamilton on the following schedule-12:50 A.M., 7:00 A.M., 6:45 P.M., 9:10 P.M. and 10:50 P.M.
2.	Mail service between Hamilton and Toronto is under constant review. We are considering a number of proposals to improve the service between these two cities including the possibility of transporting mail by autobus.


C.PJl. RAH, PASSENGER SERVICE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What representations. If any. have been received by the Board of Transport Commissioners regarding the future of rail passenger service provided by the C.P.R.?
2.	Has the Board under consideration any moves of any kind or any studies regarding this problem?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The Board has received representations against reductions in Canadian Pacific's trains Numbers 307-308 Lethbridge-Medicine Hat, trains Numbers 309-310-311-312 Calgary-Lethbridge, trains Numbers 202-203 Montreal-Megantic, trains Numbers 31-32 Montreal-International Boundary, trains 132-133 and 137-138 Montreal-Ottawa, following the filing of notices thereof; it has also received representations respecting proposed changes and
Questions
rumors of future changes in Canadian Pacific's train called "The Dominion" and requesting continuation of that train; and representations asking the Board to hold a public inquiry into Canadian Pacific's passenger service.
2. The Board has ordered Canadian Pacific to operate the trains numbered in paragraph 1 and intends to hold public hearings in respect of them. It has also directed inquiries to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National respecting their passenger reservations systems and has that subject under consideration. Advance notice of discontinuance of passenger trains is required by the Board and Canadian Pacific has not filed any such notice respecting "The Dominion" but has informed the Board of changes in head-end traffic and sleeping car and meal service on that train. As the decision as to what trains to run lies with railway management in the first instance, with regulatory power in the Board to intervene and order trains to run where sufficient reason to do so appears, the Board has no plans to institute a public inquiry at this time into the future of Canadian Pacific's passenger service as a whole but will continue to deal with individual trains and take such action as it deems warranted if Canadian Pacific files notice of discontinuance of "The Dominion" or other current passenger services.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON CAPE BRETON COAL SITUATION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	How many members comprise the Interdepartmental committee on the Cape Breton coal situation and what are their names, addresses and backgrounds?
2.	Who has been retained by the government to advise the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the interdepartmental committee on the Cape Breton coal situation?
3.	What are his terms of reference and what are
his qualifications and background?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. A committee composed of senior officials from several departments and agencies having a special interest in coal and energy matters, has been engaging itself for some time with the Cape Breton coal situation. More recently a smaller working group of these officials has been looking into particular aspects of the subject. It is not customary to name the members comprising an inter-departmental committee, but the government departments and agencies represented on these committees are as follows:

June 28. 1965
Questions
Dominion Coal Board; Atlantic Development Board; Department of Finance; Department of Labour; National Energy Board; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys; Department of Industry; Department of Trade and Commerce; Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; Department of External Affairs; Privy Council Office.
2.	A reply to this question has already been given and will be found in Hansard of June 8-Dr. J. R. Donald, chairman of the board of J. T. Donald and Company Limited of Montreal has been retained to advise the government on the Cape Breton coal situation.
3.	(a) Dr. Donald will make a general study of the Cape Breton coal problem and submit any proposals for the solution thereof and of related social problems. He will draw on the services of various federal agencies concerned with coal and has been directed to hold discussions with provincial authorities, industry officials and such other organizations as may contribute to the solution of the problem.
(b) Dr. Donald is a chemical engineer whose services to the Canadian chemical industry have been recognized by the awarding of the Society of Chemical Industry (Canadian section) Medal in 1952 and the Montreal Medal, CIC, in 1962. In addition to being chairman of the board of J. T. Donald and Company Limited, chemical and research consultants, he is chairman of the board of Donald Inspection Ltd., inspecting and testing engineers, Montreal and Toronto. From 1939 to 1945 Dr. Donald was Director General of Chemicals and Explosives of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and from 1951 to 1952 he was Director of Chemicals and Explosives of the Department of Defence Production.


SUSSEX, NB.-VISIT BY B. AND B. COMMISSION STAFF
Mr. Fairwealher: Did members of the staff of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism visit the Town of Sussex, N.B. recently and, if so, (a) what was the purpose of the visit (b) who made the visit (c) how many interviews were held with (i) children (ii) adults (d) did the staff members carry any identification or authorization from the Royal Commission explaining the purpose of their visit (e) did the staff members call on the Mayor of Sussex or any other town officers or officials (f) did the staff members seek permission from the Board of School Trustees before conducting interviews in the school (g) did the interviews include such questions as "How did you vote in the last federal and provincial elections" (h) what relevancy does the answer to these questions have to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows:
(a) and (b) Two persons carrying out research on behalf of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism visited the town of Sussex, New Brunswick, to conduct interviews with students and adults. These interviews were part of a survey on language and cultural aspects of education among children and parents of different ethnic and regional backgrounds. Sussex was one of the communities selected for this study.
(c)	55 interviews with children and 53 interviews with parents.
(d)	The senior associate carried written authorization.
(e)	and (f) No; this study is being conducted after consultation with officials in the provincial Department of Education and the local school, and with their co-operation.
(g)	One question was included in the questionnaire for the parents.
(h)	This question is included for the purpose of checking the representativeness of the group of persons interviewed by a comparison with voting results in the community.


NEW LIGHTING FACILITIES, PICTOU ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to instal new lighting facilities at the west end of Pictou Island, N.S., in place of the present facilities and, if so, what type of new equipment will be placed there and when will this work be carried out?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Department is now installing a new steel tower at Pictou Island west end to replace the former lighthouse and a 350 mm lantern with triple acetylene burner will be fitted and should be in operation within a week or ten days. A substantial increase in light intensity will result.


ADDRESS OF WORLD EXHIBITION CORPORATION
Mr. Coates: Is it necessary for the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition in its Expo Digest to carry the following address "Montreal (Quebec) Canada" and, if so, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The address "Montreal (Quebec) Canada" is used on the Expo Digest because Article No. 66, of the Canadian Postal
June 28. 1965

Guide requires that: "The full title, place, *date of publication and the distinguishing number of the issue must be prominently printed on every issue."


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, MCBETH POINT, MAN.
Mr. Slefanson: Has the government any plans for Improving the break water and harbour facilities at McBeth Point on Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, and if so, what is the (a) nature of this work (b) estimated cost (c) when will it be carried out?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: The situation at McBeth Point has [DOT]not changed since the answer given to Question No. 1535 which appeared on page 5809 of Hansard for July 22, 1964.


INVESTIGATION OF HISTORIC MOUNDS, RAINY RIVER, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources received representations from Northwestern Ontario, and particularly from Rainy River asking for a well-organized and large-scale campaign by agencies under the Minister's responsibility to investigate, succour and display great numbers of historic mounds erected by an ancient people in the area?
2.	If so, what are the mounds, where exactly are they located and in what numbers; what investigations have been carried on so far by any persons or agencies to the Department's knowledge; what provisions have been made or are under consideration by the department with regard to these sites?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, my Parliamentary Secretary and myself have both received several representations during the past year requesting government assistance in the preservation of these mounds. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Member for Kenora-Rainy River, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. Member for Fort William, have taken a particular interest in this matter.
2. Eleven mounds are known to exist near Barwick, Ontario, on the north bank of the Rainy River. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has advised me that these mounds may be of great historical importance and has recommended archaelogi-cal investigation to determine whether or not such evaluation is correct. My Department proposes to enter into a contract with the Royal Ontario Museum for undertaking an archaeological excavation of several of these mounds. I have approached the officials of the Museum in this regard and I am awaiting their reply.
Questions


COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the government's policy with respect to Canadian ownership and non-Canadian ownership of commercial enterprises in Canada's National Parks?
2.	How would this policy apply in the case of the offer by Greyhound Corporation of the United States to purchase Brewster Transport Co. Ltd. and the Brewster Rocky Mountain Gray Line Ltd., of Banff, Alberta?


Arthur Laing: 1. The Government's policy with respect to Canadian ownership and non-Canadian ownership of commercial concessions in Canada's national parks is the same as its policy toward such ownership elsewhere in Canada.
2. Our information is that negotiations have been conducted by Brewster Transport Co. Ltd. and the Brewster Rocky Mountain Gray Line Ltd., of Banff, Alberta, with a Canadian company.


DREDGING, MACDONALD POND, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out dredging at Macdonald's Pond, Indian Brook, Victoria County, Nova Scotia and, if so, when?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes. The work is now under way and is expected to be completed by the end of June.


SILVER JUBILEE, CANADIAN PROVOST CORPS
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	On what date did the Canadian Provost Corps celebrate its silver Jubilee?
2.	What language was used in the lettering of the medallions and transfers commemorating this occasion and what were the reasons thereof?
3.	To whom were these medallions and transfers distributed?
4.	Have any Franeh Canadians belonged to this military unit?

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence):l. 15 June, 1965.
2.	English. The title on the Canadian Provost Corps badge and the Corps motto are in English only.
3.	To Canadian Provost Corps Regular and Militia units.
4.	Yes.


AIDS TO NAVIGATION, LAKE WINNIPEG, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: Has any money been allocated for the aids to navigation program for Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba

June 28, 1965
Questions
and adjoining rivers for the 1965-66 fiscal year and, if so, (a) how much, and (b) what are the locations and types of projects planned under the program for the 1965-66 fiscal year?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes, (a) $17,000. (b) New range lights at Red River, Winnipeg Beach, Berens River, Refuge Harbour, Warrens Landing lower and upper, and Winnipegosis Lake.
New towers and lights at Willow Point, Lunch Point and Easterville Range.
Lighted buoys at Five .Mile Reef, Weasel Island and Dog Point, Lake Winnipegosis.
Installation of commercial power at Heda Island Wharf, Pine Dock and Matheson Island Lights.
Minor repairs, painting and brushing at Full Harbour, Red Rock Island. Warrens
Landing, Red River Floodway, Mission Point, Papoose Channel, Red River buoys, Big Black River, Fisher River, Dauphin River, Gimli Harbour, Winnipeg Beach and Red River Range.


IMPORTS OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS
Mr. Simpson: What was the value of total Imports of automobile parts into Canada from the United States for each of the following months: January 1964, January 1965, February 1964, February 1965, March 1964. March 1965, April 1964, April 1965. May 1964, May 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: See attached table. The compilation of figures for months subsequent to January 1965 has not yet been completed.


VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS INTO CANADA FROM THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
1964			1965
January February March	April	May	JanuaryGroup 588- 588-04	-Road Motor Vehicle Entities and Parts Motor vehicle engines, diesel	732	(thousands of dollars) 589 500 826	662	(thousands of dollars) 642588-19	Motor vehicles engines, n.e.s	
Parts of motor vehicle engines, diesel	1,891	1,638	1,799	2,106	2,063	1,345588-34	334	261	350	517	230	212588-49	Parts of motor vehicle engines, n.e.s	6,833	5,469	5,441	6,411	5,525	5,761Group Total	9,790	7,957	8.090	9,860	8,480	7,860Group 589-Other Road Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories 689-09 Bodies and cabs for commercial trucks and trailers, built-up	113	153	290	271	232	208589-19	Parts of trailers, n.e.s	422	472	602	751	600	360589-25	Automatic transmission units for road motor vehicles	4,478	3,145	3,548	4,237	4,455	(class589-30	Axles and axle bars for road motor vehicles	14	62	45	42	88	discontinued) 11589-35	Jacks for motor vehicles, and parts	42	24	41	47	42	18589-40	Mirrors for motor vehicles	78	90	85	83	88	65589-75	Parts of motor vehicles imported under tariff item 438b n.e.s	3,927	3,181	3,322	3,778	3,342	2,997589-80	Parts of motor vehicles imported under tariff item 438c n.e.s	24,624	16,509	17,442	19,728	17,228	13,741589-85	Parts of motor vehicles imported under tariff item 438d n.e.s	4,121	3,394	3,676	4,448	3,715	3,180589-90	Parts of motor vehicles imported under tariff item 438i n.e.s	1,752	1,347	1,569	1,678	1,635	907589-95*	Parts of motor vehicles imported under tariff item 950 n.e.s.	_	7,854589-99	Parts, accessories and assemblies for motor vehicles, n.e.s	18,781	15,366	18,427	17,418	15,557	16,869Group Total	58,361	43,743	48,947	52,481	46,980	46,210Total Road Motor Vehicle Parts and accessoires	68,151	51,700	67,037	62,341	55,460	54,070
Class not available prior to January 1, 1965.
[Mr. Stefanson.)
June 28, 1965

Mr, Vincent: Did the Minister of Forestry make an official visit, at government expense, to French territory during the month of May last and, if so (a) what was the date and purpose of the trip (b) what are the details of the itinerary for the trip (c) did anyone accompany the Minister and, if so, what are the names of such persons?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


CHEESE, BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL
Mr. Doucetl: 1.	What amount of cheese does the government have in storage, if any, as of May 1, 1965?
2.	What was the amount of butter the government had in storage as of January 1, 1965 and June 1, 1965?
3.	How much butter was sold or disposed of from February 1964 to June 1, 1965?
4.	What was the amount of butter oil the government had in storage as of January 1, 1965?
5.	How much butter oil was sold or disposed of from February 1, 1964, to June 1, 1965?
6.	In what manner was the butter oil disposed of and to whom?
7.	What prices were received for the sale of butter, butter oil?


Harry William Hays: 1. Nil.
2.	January 1, 1965, 80,004,880 lbs.; June 1, 1965, 39,335,370 lbs.
3.	Sold on domestic market, 107,971,140 lbs.; sold on export market, 41,125,224 lbs. Total 149,096,364 lbs.
4.	5,576,688 lbs.
5.	61,509,229 lbs.
6.	Butter oil was sold in carlots to the following firms and agency: Cooperative Agricole de Granby, Granby, P.Q.; Olive & Dorion Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Milk Products Incorporated, Montreal, P.Q.; Legrade Incorporated, Montreal, P.Q.; R. A. Chisholm Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Mercantile Commodities Corporation, Toronto 12, Ontario; Birks-Crawford Limited, Vancouver, B.C.; Kraft Foods Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Vermette & Fils Ltee, St. Agapit, P.Q.; Central Creameries Limited, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Shefford Dairies Limited, Lawrenceville, P.Q.; J. W. Lafave Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; New Dundee Cooperative, New Dundee, Ontario; Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, Vancouver, B.C.; Balfour-Guthrie Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Lovell & Christmas Limited, Montreal,
Questions
P.Q.; Canadian Domestic Products Limited, Ottawa, Ontario; Weddell Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Geo. Hodge & Son, Montreal, P.Q.; Black Diamond Cheese Company, Belleville, Ontario; Commodity Trading Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Canada Cold Storage Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Dominion Dry Milk Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; Swift Canadian Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Beaver Trading Company, Montreal, P.Q.; Eastern Townships Produce Limited, Sherbrooke, P.Q.; Grace, Kennedy & Company (Canada) Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; United Dairy & Poultry Co-operative Limited, Toronto, Ontario.
World Food Programme
7.	Butter:	Domestic-February to April,
1964,	520 per lb.; May, 1964 to April, 1965, 530 per lb.; May, 1965 to June, 1965, 550 per lb.
These prices, basis delivery Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime Provinces.
Export: 33J0 and 360 per lb. basis delivery to Canadian port of export.
Butter oil: Domestic-February 19, 1964 to April 19, 1964, 650 per lb.; May, 1964 to June,
1965,	660 per lb.
These prices were basis delivery, Ontario, Quebec and Maritime Provinces.
Export: Butter oil was all sold at 270 per lb., basis delivery to Canadian port of export.


MAIL CONTRACT, STELLARTON-PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for the mall contract, Stellarton, N.S., to Ptctou, N.S.?
2.	What are the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of the tenders?
3.	To whom has, or will the contract be awarded?


René Tremblay: 1. Yes.
2.	James Hubert Collins Beck, Box 399, New Glasgow, $3,000, Thomas Edgar Dixon, Box 351, Westville, $3,650, Charles Jollymore, Pictou, $3,800, Donald Alexander MacMillan, Box 25, Pictou, $4,227, Dickson Bros. Transfer Ltd., (Douglas J. Dickson), Box 540, Stellar-ton, $5,194, Carl Douglas Spears, Box 794, Stellarton, $11,894.
3.	The contract has not yet been awarded. In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, an inquiry is now in progress to determine whether the lowest tenderers are, able to meet the requirements of the service.


COVEHEAD BRIDGE, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is the Covehead Bridge in the P.EJ. National Park to be completed on schedule?
2.	If not, when is it expected to be ready for use?

June 28, 1965
Questions
3.	What steps are in progress or contemplation to expedite its completion?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	While it was orginally expected that the bridge would be open for traffic on June 28, 1965 (as stated in my answer to my hon. friend's Question No. 383 on May 19, 1965, Hansard page 1460) due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances the opening date has to be postponed until July 24, 1965.
3.	The Department of Public Works has done everything possible to expedite the completion of this bridge. The subcontractor on this contract has added additional casting beds to speed up production of prestressed concrete beams and the labour force has been increased.


USE OF NAME &quot;RED ENSIGN CLUB OF CANADA&quot;
Mr. Coates: Was a request received from the Provincial Registrar of Companies for British Columbia by the Office of the Secretary of State for the use of the name "The Red Ensign Club of Canada, British Columbia Division" and was this request acceded to and, if not, for what reason?


Maurice Lamontagne: The use of the proposed name "The Red Ensign Club of Canada, British Columbia Division" is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and the Registrar of Companies for British Columbia has been advised accordingly.


RESEARCH COUNCIL HIGH VOLTAGE TEST CENTRE
Mr. Hales: Is it the intention of the National Research Council to build and equip an extra high voltage test centre and, if so (a), when and where is the location (b) to what does vote 5 on page 306 of the estimates 1965-66 for National Research Council to the amount of $6,700,000 refer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned: (a) The providing of and location for a high voltage test facility have not yet been determined; (b) Vote 5 of the estimates 1965-66 provides for construction and improvement of buildings and works, and for the acquisition of lands and equipment of a capital nature.


VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA BY PROFESSOR MACRAE
Mr. McCutcheon: 1. Did the B. and B. Commission, pay the expenses of, or contribute to the expenses of, Professor K. D. MacRae, who is one of the Commis-

sion's research supervisors and who has recently been in South Africa investigating language practices in that country?
2.	Did the professor have assistants?
3.	What was the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer?


John (Jack) Davis: I have been informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The total cost of this research trip is $1,758.75.


MORTGAGE REBATE ON SINGLE DWELLINGS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Has the government given consideration to the possibility of granting a 3 per cent rebate on mortgage loans on single family dwellings throughout Canada in order to assist the country's economic progress?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Housing policy is under continuous review by the Government. This review takes into account various possible ways of achieving the objectives of housing policy in relationship to general economic conditions. As policy decisions are made, they are, of course, announced in the House in the usual way.


TRADE AND COMMERCE EMPLOYEES RECEIVING OVER $6,000 ANNUALLY
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many French speaking Canadians are there in the Department of Trade and Commerce, whose salaries are $6,000 a year or more?
2.	How many Civil Servants are there in all in this Department whose salaries are $6,000 a year or more?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. 140.
2. 649.
If the hon. member wishes to know the D.B.S. figures, here they are:
1. 106.
2. 465.


LABOUR CODE COVERAGE OF C.B.C. PERSONNEL
Mr. McCutcheon: Will employees of the C.B.C. come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Standards Code Act, and, if so, will personnel under contract to the C.B.C. for 52 weeks or less in any given year and
June 28, 1965

who work in excess of 40 hours during a five day-week receive overtime at 1J times their basic hourly rate or its equivalent?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that its employees come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Standards Code Act.
Employees who work in excess of 40 hours in a five day week will receive overtime at the II rate except those who may be excluded from the application of the Act as identified in a submission the Corporation is presently putting forward for suspension on application of Part 1 of the Act for certain categories of employees who fall under the Act but who must be exempted from the application of Part 1 because of the nature of their work.
The application of the Act to personnel under contract for less than 52 weeks is under review and an interpretation of its application here will be called for.
All other employees, i.e. on 52 weeks of employment in a year classified as employees, within the meaning of the Act, will be governed by its provisions except as specified as above.


MONORAIL, AND MOVING SIDEWALK FOR EXPO '67
Mr. Coaies: 1.	Has the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition requested the federal government to approve the purchases of a miniature monorail
and a moving sidewalk?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the monorail and
moving sidewalk?
3.	Has a decision been reached by the government and what is the federal participation if such a decision has been reached?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Yes.
2.	Estimated cost, which includes capital and operating costs, is $10,000,000; estimated revenue including salvage value is $10,240,000; estimated profit $240,000.
3.	The purchase of a secondary transit system was approved by Order in Council P.C. 1965-660.
Federal participation is expected to be nil since revenues and salvage exceed cost.


FEDERAL COMMITMENT RESPECTING DEFICIT, EXPO '67
Mr. Coates: 1. What is the federal government's commitment with regard to any deficit that might result from Expo '67?
Questions
2.	Has an estimate of the deficit been made by officials of Expo '67 and, if so, what is this estimate?
3.	What is the breakdown of participation between the federal government and the government of the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Federal Government's commitment is 50 per cent of the deficit.
2.	The estimates of cost and revenues have been under constant review since December 1963 when the master plan for the Exhibition was submitted to and approved by the three governments. At this date, the revenues are estimated at $184,276,000 and the expenditures are estimated at $244,092,000. The net cost to the three governments sponsoring Expo '67 is placed at $59,816,000.
Individual costs are thus estimated at $29,908,000 for the Federal Government, $22,431,000 for the Government of the Province of Quebec and $7,477,000 for the City of Montreal.
3.	See answer to Part 2.


TOTAL COST OF EXPO '67
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition prepared an estimate of the total cost of Expo '67?
2.	If such an estimate has been made, what is the amount and what was the original amount established in 1963?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2. The total cost at today's estimate is $59,816,000, as compared to the estimate in 1963 of $47,534,000.


EXPO '67-EMPLOYEES, WAGES, ETC.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the number of employees of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
at the present time?
2.	What is the estimated total employment by the Corporation in 1967?
3.	What is the total amount of wages, salaries and expenses of individuals employed by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
for 1964?
4.	What is the total amount of wages, salaries and expenses of individuals employed by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition for the first five months of 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The number of administrative and operating employees of the Corporation at the present time is 650.
2. The estimated total employment of administrative and operating employees of the Corporation in 1967 is 1,500.

June 28, 1965
Questions
3.	The total amount of wages, salaries and expenses of individuals employed by the Corporation for the full year 1964 was $3,375,379.
4.	The total amount of wages, salaries and expenses of individuals employed by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition for the first five months of 1965 is $2,148,446.


COST OF HABITAT '67
Mr. Coates: 1.	What Is the estimated cost of Habitat '67?
2.	What is the estimate of the resale value of Habitat 1967 and who will bear the loss if one should occur?
3.	Is it correct that a swimming pool will be constructed with each unit of Habitat 1967 and what is the estimated cost of the swimming pools which will be constructed?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The estimated cost of Habitat '67 is $113,200,000.
2.	The resale value of Habitat '67 is presently estimated at $8,000,000. If a deficit does in fact occur it will be shared by the Federal Government 50 per cent, the Provincial Government 37J per cent and the City of Montreal 121 per cent. Provision for a deficit is already included in the Corporation's estimates.
3.	No.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION, EXPO '67
Mr. Coates: Is the Government of Canada assisting either the Government of the Province of Quebec, or the City of Montreal, in the construction of a subway tunnel to St. Helen's Island, the site of Expo '67 and, if so, what is the estimated contribution of the federal government in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government of Canada is not assisting the Province of Quebec or the City of Montreal in the construction of a subway tunnel to St. Helen's Island.


PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ON PURCHASES, EXPO '67
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the Government of the Provinoe of Quebec to collect a sales tax on purchases made at Expo '67?


Mitchell William Sharp: Provincial sales taxes are not paid by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, the Federal and Provincial Governments or foreign exhibitors.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Deachman: In each year since 1950, what have been the totals of expenditures made on behalf of National Defence within the province of British Columbia by way of (a) capital investment and maintenance of all military, naval and air force installations with the province (b) purchase within British Columbia of naval vessels and armed forces material of all kinds?
Return tabled.


REGIONAL SCHOOL FOR INDIANS, SIOUX LOOKOUT, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is any consideration being given to the establishment at Sioux Lookout, Ontario, of a regional school for Indians, particularly with the purpose in mind of offering trade and technical courses; if so, what other communities are being considered for this school?
2.	What representations have been made to the government regarding such a school, including the names of persons or organizations putting the argument forward?
Return tabled.


ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, OTTAWA
Mr. More: Does the Government of Canada and the Department of Public Works employ consulting architectural and engineering firms in connection with government projects in Ottawa and area and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of the firms so employed, and (b) what are the projects on which each firm is engaged?
Return tabled.


ARDA-PROJECTS BENEFICIAL TO FISHERMEN
Mr. Howard: Since the inception of ARDA, has any approval been given to any projects which would be of direct benefit to fishermen and, if so, what is, with respect to each such project, (a) the total cost ('b) the name of the provincial government involved (c) the federal government's share of the cost (d) the provincial government's share of the cost (e) the date of the approval (f) the details?
Return tabled.


MOTOR TRANSPORT BRANCH, H.M.C.S. &quot;SHEARWATER&quot;
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is there an irregular shift cycle in operation in the Motor Transport Branch at HM.C.S. Shearwater'!
2.	If so, (a) when was the irregular shift cycle introduced (b) how does the irregular shift cycle operate?
3.	Are any drivers exempt from work on weekends?
June 28, 1965

4.	If so, why are such drivers exempt from weekend work?
5.	Are seasonal drivers employed in the Motor Transport Branch?
6.	If so, did seasonal drivers receive a pay increase at the same time regular drivers received a pay increase?
7.	If not, what was the reason for not granting seasonal drivers a pay increase?
8.	What is the basis upon which members of the Motor Transport Branch are promoted?
9.	Are permanent drivers assigned to the ambulances at H.M.C.S. Shearwater?
10.	If not, was it ever the policy to have such permanent ambulance drivers and when was any such change made?
11.	On what date was the most recent competition held for the position of supervisor for the Motor Transport Branch?
12.	What are the names of those who took part in this competition?
13.	Were any prevailing rate employees disqualified after writing an exam for this competition?
14.	If so, what were the reasons for such disqualification?
15.	Are service vehicles used by naval or civilian personnel for the purpose of moving personal household furniture and effects?
16.	Are members of the Motor Transport Branch prevented from going to their personal vehicles during working hours?
17.	If so, to what other sections at H.M.C.S. Shearwater does this ruling apply?
Return tabled.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. I wish to bring to the attention of the Government, and in particular of the Acting Prime Minister who is in charge of the Government these days, the fact that despite the answers which have been forthcoming to the questions, written and oral, which appear on the order paper, there are still approximately 167 questions which remain to be answered. Of these 24 are two months old, 51 are approximately one month old, and some 89 are between three days and two weeks old.
I submit that in return for co-operation in cutting down the length of the oral question period we expected that this Government and its ministers would show some improvement in answering promptly the questions which are placed on the order paper. But gentlemen opposite have evidently not mended their ways. The presence on the order paper of so many questions still to be answered is a sign of negligence on the part of ministers. It is far too large a number of questions to have remained unanswered for such long periods. I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister, if he has any influence with his colleagues, and within his own department, to try to rectify this situation.
22620-186J
Orders for Returns


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not rise to point out that the hon. gentleman's statement was, of course, out of order. I did not raise a point of order because I knew the hon. gentleman was trying to help the Government. I would simply ask him to recall that we now have more questions than we ever had before. This was a constant source of complaint when we sat on the other side of the House. In any event, since the hon. gentleman has approached this problem in a constructive way I will reply in an equally constructive manner by undertaking to look into it at once.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege at this point.
On May 20 last, I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) asking him if lawyer Paul Lacoste, of Montreal, was still co-secretary of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. At that time, the Prime Minister replied that he would find out and give me a reply shortly.
Having had no reply, I had a starred question put on the order paper on June 16, 1965. That question has remained unanswered, and I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) might be willing to wake up a few sleepy heads in order that I might obtain a reply to my question.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that under the new rules this question requires notice to be served.


Mr. Aiken:: No.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is no doubt about that. I will take the question as notice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, surely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely we can make faster progress. We have heard the complaint, which is what it amounts to.


Mr. Slewari:: Mr. Speaker, that starred question was answered last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, I apologize; but I do not think it was answered -not in my presence, anyway.
2930	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



TORONTO-CONSIDERATION OF STATUS OF DUANE DOYLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre very courteously reminded me today of an answer I had promised some weeks ago would be given, but which I have not yet given. On May 7 he asked me to check into the case of one Duane Doyle. I have looked into the case, and would inform the hon. Member and others interested that Mr. Doyle and his family left Canada, actually they returned to the United States on June 13. It is quite possible that they will return to Canada this fall. They say they like this country and want to settle here as landed immigrants. If they return their case will start de novo.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the first question I direct to the Acting Prime Minister, and ask him whether the report of the inquiry held by Mr. Justice Dorion is now available. Has the Government this report in its possession, and were the press references correct to the effect that this report would be made available today?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minisler: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Government has not yet received the report of the Royal Commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any foundation for what is stated in the press, that it is to be made available at four o'clock tomorrow- I think that is the Canadian Press report- or does the Government not intend to have this report produced before the adjournment of this particular portion of the session?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There would be no basis for the last observation, Mr. Speaker. The report has not yet been received.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of the question period today I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether the Dorion Commission report had been made available for the Government, and he said no. I now direct the question to the Minister

DEBATES	June 28. 1965
of Justice, and ask him whether he has had a copy of the report, as a Member of the Government, or a summary of the findings; and if so when?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisler of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the only summary or alleged summary I have ever seen was the alleged leak drawn to our attention by the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I never drew it to the attention of the House; I read it in the newspaper, and I was a long way off at the time.
I asked the Minister, has he seen a summary or precis of the recommendations or findings; that was the question?


Guy Favreau: I never saw any summary or part or preview of the report.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question concerning the Dorion report. What did he mean by a statement that is reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 19, 1965, and I quote:
I cannot comment even slightly about it, but the earlier it is tabled, the better. You can gather from that what I think its conclusions will be.
May I ask the Minister of Justice if that does not indicate that he has some prior knowledge with regard to the conclusions of the report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is real McCarthyism.


Mr. MacEwan:: You are an expert; you ought to know.


Guy Favreau: It only indicates, Mr. Speaker, a restful state of mind in relation to what I know are the actions I have taken.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry which is of interest to quite a number of organizations in western Canada. How many representatives of the Area Development Agency of the Department of Industry are employed in promoting industrial development in Canada? What particular form of organization is being recommended by these officials to municipal councils, Chambers of Commerce and other organizations interested in this question?
June 28, 1965


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a good type of question for the order paper. However, in view of the fact that there may be a short delay, if the Minister is prepared to answer perhaps it might be useful to clear the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will clear the question. There are six representatives of the Area Development Agency employed in the manner outlined in the hon. gentleman's question. The type of organization recommended varies with the size of the town or city, but generally it is suggested that each community form an independent industrial commission composed of representatives from the city or town council and the local Board of Trade or Chamber of Commerce, as the case may be, for the purpose of fostering the development of industry within the community.
If warranted, a recommendation may be made that the community consider hiring of a part time or full time industrial commissioner who can take the lead in carrying out industrial development work. In addition, in co-operation with provincial authorities the officers of the Area Development Agency have also indicated guide lines which interested communities might follow in outlining to industry the basic facilities and services which are available within an area.
In the case of the Province from which the hon. Member comes, in particular, the area development officer has been taking an extended tour through the main centres in the Province with the purpose of familiarizing himself with business and economic activities and also to advise these communities how they might best attract industries to their area. The tour has been arranged with the full knowledge and co-operation of the British Columbia Department of Industry and Commerce.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I first take this somewhat belated opportunity of welcoming you back today from the functions in connection with the 700th anniversary of the first parliament, and the business meetings you had in Paris and Geneva, which we hope reached profitable conclusions.
Inquiries of the Ministry
My question today is to the Minister of Industry and possibly to the Minister of Justice. On four different occasions, the first being on May 11, I have requested information regarding the theft of 150 tons of cobalt contained in some 245 barrels or drums. I think it was on June 15, the day of my last question that the Minister of Industry said he would have a statement the following day. We are still waiting for some information about this preposterous situation, where strategic material was taken in such quantity and we cannot get any information about it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the House will be aware, that the cobalt in question was ordered at a time when cobalt was considered a strategic material to be stockpiled. Since then, however, the production of cobalt throughout the world has reached a point where it is no longer considered a strategic material-


Michael Starr: It is stealable now, is it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -any more than would be nickel, chromium, tungsten or molybdenum. The 150 tons in question was in the custody of the producer and refiner of cobalt. It has disappeared from their premises. The Ontario Provincial Police have been assiduously undertaking an investigation of this theft. The Government has indicated to the company that it holds it responsible for the return of the cobalt, and we are now awaiting the results of the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is an intriguing question and I cannot interpret from the Minister's answer whether, strategic or not, this loss can be excused. On June 15 I asked who are the users of cobalt, locally or internationally, in so far as wanting such material in large quantity is concerned.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, without going into a lecture I might say that any industrialized nation is a substantial user of cobalt. This metal is used principally as an alloying element in many types of high speed steels, heat-resisting alloys and permanent magnet alloys. Dealing with the consumption of cobalt, I am told it is approximately 12,000 tons annually, and that this loss represents, as the hon. Member will understand, a very small fraction of the annual consumption of cobalt by industrialized nations.


John George Diefenbaker: What is its value?


Robert Norman Thompson: It involves some $100,000 of taxpayers' money.
5932	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry URANIUM



PROGRESS OF DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING SALE TO FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin).
It seems to me that it is in the interest of the house to know what is the present standing of the negotiations with France respecting this famous Canadian uranium sale contract. Are those negotiations definitely broken off or are they still going on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce to answer that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions are proceeding between some of the Canadian uranium mines and the French Government,
I am informed, on the basis of the declaration of policy made by the Canadian Government which I have reported to this House.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has not the French government notified Canada that it will not accept the principle of inspection; and is it not a fact that at this very time EURATOM is giving consideration to this matter so that an arrangement might possibly be made through the instrumentality of that body?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite understand the purport of the right hon. gentleman's question. Would he mind repeating it?


John George Diefenbaker: What I am saying is this. Is it not a fact that every indication has been given by the Government of France that it will not accept the principle of inspection by Canada to assure that uranium sold to that country shall be used for civil purposes? Second, with a view to resolving that difficulty, is it not the case that EURATOM has entered the equation, and that through that organization it may be possible to work out a plan which will be satisfactory to the Republic of France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm what the right hon. gentleman has said. During the discussions with the French Government which I had in Paris we discussed

DEBATES	June 28, 1965
various forms of control, but did not at that time reach any agreement as to what would be a suitable method of control. The French Government did express its objection to one particular form, but no agreement has yet been reached as to which of the remaining forms might be suitable.


John George Diefenbaker: One further question on that. What was the specific plan of inspection to which the French Government objected?


Mitchell William Sharp: The French Government indicated to us that it was not prepared to accept the international Atomic energy agency.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us whether this control and inspection policy regarding uranium to be sold to France has been requested, suggested or dictated to the Canadian government by the American government?
Are the United States demanding this control on the sale of Canadian uranium to France?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Haf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There were C.T.V. news reports over the week end which indicated that France had rejected Canadian control but that she would accept EURATOM inspection for the purposes mentioned. I should like to know whether this has been conveyed to the Canadian Government, also whether the Canadian Government accepted the principle of EURATOM carrying out the inspection.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware we have had no such message from the French Government. However, perhaps I ought to say that the Canadian Government has not insisted upon a bilateral arrangement whereby Canadians would do the inspection. We would be prepared to consider alternative forms of control. I am not certain, of course, whether the controls under EURATOM would be satisfactory, but they are certainly open for discussion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago last Monday the Acting
June 28, 19G5	COMMONS
Prime Minister informed me that the question I had asked some week and a half ago relative to the Government's attitude on discrimination against married women in employment, or against women in employment who were intending to get married, would be answered by the Minister of Labour not later than today. Could 1 ask the Minister of Labour for his reply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Secretary of State for External Affairs would expect me to be more qualified than he on a subject dealing with the employment status of married women, but I have examined the arbitration award which has been the basis for this decision and there are, as I understand it, arguments on both sides of the question. In this case the arbitrator, or the board, quoted extensively from a finding that had been made in a similar case indicating the reasons, from the point of view of health and safety on the part of the personnel and on the part of passengers, that in the view of the arbitrator justified this award. In this case I have received representations, and I have suggested that in this particular context an effort ought to be made to settle the matter within the collective agreement. But I agree, as has been pointed out in another award in France, that this matter does raise questions of policy with respect to human rights that I cannot possibly deal with on the orders of the day.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That was not my basic question. My question was this. In view of the arbitration decision would the Government take under consideration amending the Bill of Rights or the appropriate bill so as to remove discrimination against women in employment because of their single or married status? That was my question. Would the Minister answer that question, or take it under consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider whether there is any violation under existing statutes and whether any steps can be taken to meet the point made by my hon. friend.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to
DEBATES	2933
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister assure the House and the employees of the Canadian National's Newfoundland hotel in St. John's that they will be included under the provisions of the minimum wage legislation in the new Canada Labour Code?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the hotel in question is a C.N.R. hotel and for that reason will come under the application of the Canada Labour Code.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS COMMUNICATIONS WITH QUEBEC RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether or not he has received a communication from the Quebec government or the premier of that province, Mr. Lesage, concerning offshore resources? Could he tell us if the Quebec government has indicated that it had exclusive jurisdiction over those resources?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since he is now the head of the government in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, does the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) intend to settle that matter privately with the province of Quebec and to try to convince the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to leave to the province its long standing jurisdiction over its offshore as well as its underground resources?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my friend is well aware, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a minister and a very conscientious man-


Gilles Grégoire: It does not show.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He knows his obligations and he tries to do all he can in the interests of the country and of all Canadians.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Has the Acting Prime Minister had the opportunity to consider the rather astonishing statement made by the Minister of
June 28, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Northern Affairs and National Resources in the house, last Friday, when he declared that those rights belonged to the federal government?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I find the question interesting but, to my regret, I did not hear that statement.



CANADIAN APPLICATION TO HOLD 1968 WINTER OLYMPICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and its great urgency is based on the forthcoming meeting of the International Olympic Committee. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Canada still has a chance to act as host to the 1968 winter Olympic games?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Aciing Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave me notice of this question and I thought I had indicated that I was looking into the matter.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. While the Minister is looking into the matter would he try to ascertain for the House whether France cannot act as host to the winter Olympic games in 1968 because of problems relating to the recognition of East Germany?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt that conclusion, but I will include that in my researches.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister answer the question before the House adjourns, either tomorrow or the next day?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of an article written by Gerald Waring which appears in the current issue of Maclean's magazine. When the Minister announced the Government's new air transport policy, as he did on June 1, indicating that Air Canada would have complete control of air services from Canada to northern, western

and eastern Europe with the single exception that Canadian Pacific Airlines would serve the Netherlands, did he refer only to such service as the C.P.A. already is flying over the Pole to the Netherlands, or did he mean something more than he said on that occasion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is a bilateral arrangement with the Netherlands, and it is intended that any service there may be between Canada and the Netherlands will be provided by Canadian Pacific Airlines, just as it is intended that any service between the United Kingdom and Canada and between Canada and France will be provided by Air Canada. Any expansion of any of these services will be provided by the air line in question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister not realize that if Canadian Pacific Airlines is permitted to fly from Montreal to Amsterdam this is a violation of the principle that the Government has laid down with respect to the right of Air Canada to serve northern, western and central Europe?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any such realization. I said quite clearly in my statement that this was an exception to the principle, and it is an exception.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the Minister's suggestion that he made a clear statement, does he not realize that by that statement he misled the House?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not, Sir. I do not think my words bear any such interpretation. If the hon. gentleman drew a wrong inference from my words, I cannot be blamed for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I drew the inference from what the Minister said.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question, but first of all I would like to point out to the house that for the first time in history a group of students from 20 secondary schools in Gaspesia are here this afternoon and are listening to the debates of the house. I wish to welcome these students most cordially in Ottawa.
June 28, 1965

Now I wish to put my question to the Minister of Transport.
Will the studies on transportation in the Atlantic provinces which were announced by the Minister on June 8 include the areas south of the St. Lawrence river and east of Levis, in the province of Quebec?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the studies on the problems and needs in the field of transportation in the Atlantic provinces account will have to be taken of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and also of possible amendments of this act.
As the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies in the Quebec areas located south of the St. Lawrence river and east of Levis, account will also have to be taken of the requirements of these areas as concerns railway transportation, as well as of some other related factors.
I have discussed this problem with the Premier of Quebec and he shares my point of view.



CHAMPLAIN WATERWAY-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the report of the International Bureau of Studies of the Champlain waterway which was supposed to be submitted by the Joint International Commission at the end of June will be made public shortly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. After inquiring from the Joint International Commission, I can say that the latter will not be in a position, of course, to make any decision with regard to the report before receiving it.
When it has received and studied the report it will be able to decide what attitude to take.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Considering the importance of that project for members representing eastern ridings as well as for the development of the country, I wonder whether the report could be distrib-22620-187

Inquiries of the Ministry uted to all members of the House as soon as it is submitted to the Commission so that we could read it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. [English]



SASKATCHEWAN-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a very urgent question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a telegram which was forwarded to me this morning, to the effect that the problem of the availability of box cars to move grain from eastern Saskatchewan has become very acute. Wheat pool committees from Creelman, Osage, Fillmore, Reward and Tyvan have wired to say that at least 570 cars will be required to move the grain out of that area alone before the end of the crop year. Will the Minister, working in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, give this serious matter immediate attention?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received by telephone the telegram referred to by my hon. friend, and the matter is already in hand.



REPORTED DROP IN GRAIN DELIVERIES TO WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the situation regarding grain deliveries through the west coast deteriorated during the past week or so, and could the Minister indicate what steps or action the Government is contemplating to meet this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in fact the movement of cars to the west coast has been improving recently. As hon. gentlemen may know, the railway companies and the elevator companies had been anticipating a strike for some time and had held up the movement of cars because they did not want them piling up in Vancouver. But in recent days and weeks the movement has increased so, however paradoxical it may seem, the situation has improved.
June 28. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the busy Minister of Transport. In view of the reported statement by the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association that unless the commercial shipbuilding subsidy is restored by 1966 orders will be placed in the United Kingdom, is it the Government's intention to end the suspension of this subsidy in order to encourage the placing of orders with Canadian shipyards, as was the intention when these subsidies were introduced?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Government is giving most urgent consideration to the question of the form and nature of federal assistance to Canadian shipbuilding and is quite aware of the statement which the hon. Member has repeated today. I should like to remind the House again, as I have done on several occasions, that the provisions of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act are available to shipbuilders at the present time.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister give the House any idea as to when the interdepartmental committee on this matter will be reporting to the Minister and to the Government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I know from personal experience and from observation of the experiences of some other Ministers of this and other Governments that it is very hazardous to give these target dates. All I can say is that I hope it will be soon.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which is also of interest to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the trial of Mr. William Grant has now been concluded in Whitehorse, does the Minister intend to make any amendments for what the Edmonton Journal has termed an outrageous prosecution?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I

cannot of course accept a conclusion reached by a newspaper, no matter how worthy that newspaper might be. I may say I have asked for a transcript of part of the proceedings and the matter, will then be considered. When a decision has been made it will be announced, I hope at an early date.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister during his consideration of this matter also seriously consider the reinstatement of Mr. Grant in his former position?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have said that the matter would be given consideration and study at an early date. An announcement will be made very quickly in respect of the position we will take.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader or the Liberal Whip when the standing committee on agriculture is to be set up. The members of all the other committees with the exception of this one were named recently, and perhaps we could now have some indication as to when nominations and the motion are to be made to set up this committee.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been some inconclusive discussions regarding the number of members of different parties to be represented on this committee on the basis of a larger committee than was originally suggested. I have a resolution which I am prepared to move at any time.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether he has heard anything more about the decision of the Redistribution Commission of Ontario regarding the publishing of certain new maps in weekly newspapers of this province.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I promised I have communicated with Hon. Mr. Justice Richardson, Chairman of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and he has told me that representations by the weekly press were re-
June 28, 1965	COMMONS
ceived too late to be considered when the new maps were published in the daily press. The Commission has now reconsidered the matter and has decided not to advertise in the weekly press because it would involve setting a new date for public hearings, which would cause undesirable confusion in view of the date already indicated in the daily press.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I believe the excuse that has been given for not publishing these maps in the weekly press in ridings where no other newspaper serves the area is a very lame excuse.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Justice Richardson has said he will take direction from the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I ask
the Minister of Labour when he expects to have the report from Mr. Justice Freedman on the railway runthroughs, and whether the promise he made to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act depends on the recommendations in that report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The latest information I have is that Justice Freedman expects to bring down his report by October 1. The comments I made in connection with the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act were made before the railway unions, and in those comments I raised questions which were obviously under discussion by the Commission, and have been under discussion.



VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE WIDENING OF STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of some urgency that I should like to address to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the shipment of Prairie grain from the port of Vancouver. The question is, has the Minister received, as some Members have, a complaint from the union involved in connection with grain shipments at Vancouver, to the effect that tactics are being used by the elevator concerned which may lead to the widening of the strike?
DEBATES	2937
Inquiries of the Ministry What is the situation there with regard to an early settlement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There has been a communication that might bear the interpretation mentioned by my hon. friend, and because it dealt with matters largely within the jurisdiction of his Department an answer has been sent to the union on this matter by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In connection with the settlement of the dispute, the mediator is still conducting negotiations on the West Coast with a view to a settlement.


Barry Mather: I wonder if we could have the substance of the reply sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the first question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not like to answer an unspecified question. I would be happy to answer if one is put to me.


Barry Mather: The question was, has the Minister received a complaint from the grain handlers union involved to the effect that the elevator company is using tactics which may widen the dispute and further delay the shipment of grain from Vancouver? I understood the Minister of Labour to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had replied to this complaint and I wondered what his reply was.


Mitchell William Sharp: My hon. friend quite rightly said the telegram could bear that interpretation. The particular point, I think, that was in the mind of the hon. Member in asking this question was the suggestion in the telegram that cars were being diverted from the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator to other elevators. In my reply I said I was aware of the one case that they had mentioned in their telegram, and if there were any others I would have them investigated.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has received any official or unofficial representations from the Government of the United States with regard to the retroactive provisions of the new Bank Act regarding the Mercantile Bank. If so, what has been
June 28, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the representation and what has been his reply?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the Minister received any information that there may be action taken by the United States Government in retaliation against Canadian agencies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Ouebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State? Does the English network of the C.B.C. intend to show once again the National Film Board's film entitled "Every second car" designed to promote safe automobile designs?
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of
State): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this film will be shown once again today.


Guy Marcoux: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the intention of the government to ask the National Film Board to translate this documentary film, for the C.B.C. would have great interest in showing that film on its French network?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be pleased to convey this request to the government film commissioner.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
We were promised a national flag and a national anthem within two years after the Liberal party's taking office and that delay expired over two months ago. Moreover, there is not on the order paper any measure indicating the government's desire to propose the adoption of a national anthem by both houses this year. Therefore, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us when the national
anthem will be adopted by Parliament and also if that will be before the summer recess?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think this proposal is contained in the speech from the throne and, if I am not mistaken, that matter was discussed recently on the orders of the day.
However, if this answer is not satisfactory to my hon. friend maybe I could add to it tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question.
Since the two year delay the government had set for action expired over two months ago, does the government intend to respect as much as possible that promise at least, and give our country a national anthem before the summer recess?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this project has been announced in the speech from the throne.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State concerning the inquiry I made of him last week with respect to possible action, under the provisions of the Companies Act, against the S.I.U. Building Corporation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. Member that summaries for the periods ending March 31, 1964 and March 31, 1965 were received in the Department on June 21 last. The company is now in good standing.


Erik Nielsen: May I direct a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If these summaries were received on the 21st, this was prior to the answer given in the House to the question put on the order paper by the hon. Member for Kootenay West. Why was this information not provided to the House on that occasion?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add to my first reply and say that the Department of the Secretary of State has never prosecuted any company or any director or any officer for default in filing annual summaries. This was mainly due to the difficulty in enforcement of the penalty provisions under the old Companies Act. The new Corporations

June 28, 1985	COMMONS
Act, which comes into force July 1, 1965, provides new and more easily enforceable sanctions in this respect.


Erik Nielsen: As a last supplementary, now that the Government is in possession of this information will it tell the House whether Hal Banks is on the directorship of the corporation?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will take notice of this question, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, but before doing so I wish to call to the house's attention the presence of an important delegation of students from the Gaspe peninsula and to wish them a most pleasant stay in the national capital.
Will the government follow up the numerous requests and suggestions made by various Canadian associations, namely the district Chamber of Commerce of the Gasp6 peninsula, for the establishment of regulations concerning the use of the Canadian flag with a view to surrounding our national emblem with all due respect?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and give an answer to the hon. member as soon as I have the information.
tEnglish]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture-


Alfred Dryden Hales: Where is he?


George Louis Chatterton: -or in his absence to his Parliamentary Secretary.


Alfred Dryden Hales: And where is he?


George Louis Chatterton: No doubt the Minister has been informed of the serious situation on Vancouver Island with the identification of
DEBATES	2939
Inquiries of the Ministry the golden nematode. Can the Minister say what action is being taken to compensate those farmers and nursery growers who might be totally ruined by the discovery of this infestation?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary I will take notice of this question.



AVAILABILITY TO FARMERS OF HAY ON NATIONAL DEFENCE PROPERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the extreme drought that exists in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, could the Minister make the hay and pasture, that is available on properties owned by the Department of National Defence, available to farmers where practical?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the Minister's failure to answer the question from the hon. Member for Dufferin-Simcoe another example of Government arrogance toward the very serious problem facing farmers in Eastern Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that was a statement, not a question.



OTTAWA VALLEY-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS RESPECTING DROUGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture.
Can the minister inform the house of the results of the meeting which is supposed to have been held this afternoon between the Minister of Agriculture and the representatives of the Ontario and Quebec governments concerning the situation of eastern farmers, especially those in the Ottawa valley?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting started at 1.30 p.m. between the Minister of Agriculture and myself, on one hand, and Messrs. Stewart and Courcy and their officials, on the other hand. It is still going on in the office of the Minister of Agriculture.
2940	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Minister tell us when he will be in a position to give us a report on that meeting?


Maurice Sauvé: I believe that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to report tomorrow.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Forestry tell us if the federal government, in the course of last week, consulted the organizations of the districts concerned prior to meeting with the provincial governments?


Maurice Sauvé: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, although I have received a telegram from "l'Union catholique des cultivateurs" containing the following pertinent message:
We are very happy to note action taken by government authorities to help farmers.


Clément Vincent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Forestry tell us if, following this telegram, the government will say that it is because the official opposition has raised the question of a special debate on that matter that it dealt with that problem?


Maurice Sauvé: It is obvious, I think, Mr. Speaker, that this meeting has been called on the initiative of the government.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is based on a certain feeling for aging members of the Press Gallery and the opportunities provided by the coming recess under the vocational retraining legislation. Would the Minister inform the House whether consideration is being given to the establishment of a course in journalism, in a suitable school, that will provide an opportunity for the re-education of the so-called old guard members of the Press Gallery to the academic standards suggested as necessary in this scientific age by the hon. Member for Port Arthur?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. There seems to have been a lack of publicity with regard to the arrival of our distinguished visitor from
IMr. Sauve.]
DEBATES	June 28, 1365
England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was wondering at what time and on what day the Secretary of State for External Affairs met him at the airport, and why wasn't it publicized in the press?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer the question. Right Hon. James Callaghan is, of course, a most distinguished and most welcome visitor to Canada. His visit is of the same friendly and business-like character as the many informal visits which Canadian and British ministers have made back and forth from time to time in the past for exchanges of views with our opposite numbers.


Mr. Fairweather:: Don't drown in that verbose reply.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am very grateful to my hon. friend for his interjection. On this particular occasion Right Hon. Mr. Callaghan decided to come early so he might pay a private visit to a friend of his, the British High Commissioner. Today he held a meeting with the Acting Prime Minister, and later he and I and our respective officials had a very helpful and useful exchange of views.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his experience at Orly airport in Paris, wouldn't it have been rather nice to have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer met by some representative of the Government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe firmly that there would be no one I would want to meet more warmly than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


John George Diefenbaker: Why didn't you do it?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the remarks of Mr. Club with respect to the financial status of Dominion Coal Company, can the Minister indicate any steps the Government is prepared to take to provide assistance to that company regarding the opening of a new mine at Lingan?
June 28, 1985


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy that could not be answered on orders of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. On Friday last I asked him a question concerning the reported arrest in Jackson, Mississippi, of Mr. Paul Saltzman, son of C.B.C. weatherman Percy Saltzman. The Minister's officials were good enough over the week end to inform me of what was happening. Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an up to date report concerning this young Canadian civil rights worker?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention Friday around noontime, and we gave instructions at once to our Consul General who has jurisdiction in that particular state. He has been in touch with the police and has been told that Mr. Saltzman, if he would agree to return to Canada, would be allowed to do so. However, Mr. Saltzman refused the offer because he wanted to stay with his group and did not want any preferred treatment. I have given our Consul General instructions to keep us fully informed, and I shall let my hon. friend know the course of events.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: number of Members seem more interested in bothering the Minister of Agriculture, who is not here, than in questioning the Minister of Fisheries, who is here. I never like the Minister of Fisheries to feel neglected, so I will ask him whether in view of the recent activity of Soviet mother ships and trawlers some 50 miles off the west coast of Vancouver Island the Government has under active consideration new proposals to bring the U.S.S.R. into the North Pacific Fisheries Convention.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Some months ago I explained the situation concerning U.S.S.R. participation in the
Income Tax Act
North Pacific treaty, and I have nothing to add at this time.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister with regard to a matter I referred to him last week. Has he yet concluded his diplomatic interdepartmental discussion with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so as to be in a position to tell the House whether representatives of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism will be attending the Yugoslav Conference?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The convention in Yugoslavia is over. It has been over for several days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: This information was provided by the Acting Prime Minister, not by me. Perhaps, so I can understand his remarks, he will tell us whether personnel from the B and B Commission will be attending this meeting in Yugoslavia.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They cannot be attending it if the convention is over.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. The Acting Prime Minister gave me the information that representatives of the B and B Commission may be attending in Yugoslavia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I have unwittingly caused the hon. Member to be placed in this difficult position. It is very rarely that I do that sort of thing.


Erik Nielsen: Would the Minister now answer the question and say whether any personnel of the B and B Commission were in Yugoslavia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can answer that and I hope put an end to the matter. The hon. Member asked me whether they were going to attend. I said they could not attend because the convention is over, but two representatives of the said Commission did attend as alternate delegates.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 25 consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the third reading of Bill No. C-118, to amend
[Stage Direction]
June 28. 1965
Income Tax Act
the Income Tax Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether he reacts at all to the proposals which were put forward by Mr. Sifton at the very end of last week with regard to the newspaper part of this legislation? 1 assume there is some distinction to be drawn between those proposals and the earlier ones which were put forward editorially by the newspaper in the hands of this gentleman. I should like to know whether the Minister had considered Mr. Sifton's most recent proposal.
Another question I wish to ask came to my mind on reading Friday's debate. It is this. What studies have the Government made to be sure that effective control of Canadian newspapers can really be maintained by this proposed legislation in the light of experience? It seems obvious to me from the editorial policy of the Fredericton Gleaner over the years, for example, and from the interest which Lord Thomson takes in the fact that ownership of his papers may be vested in Thomson of Canada Limited, or with such people as Brigadier Wardell in the case of the Fredericton Gleaner, this is not something to which too much importance should be attached. The fact remains that Thomson newspapers have continued to be an expression in many ways of the ideas of Lord Thomson, the British citizen operating in Britain-and I am not being terribly critical of this. I would just like to hear from the Minister how sure he feels that this will be a really effective way of controlling ownership and keeping it in Canadian hands; apart, that is, from the theory attaching to corporations.
In other words I am arguing that Lord Thomson still retains effective control of the Thomson newspaper chain in Canada as Lord Beaverbrook retained effective control of the Fredericton Gleaner throughout the years even though legal ownership may have been Canadian. I am not talking now about advertising policy. I am thinking much more about editorial and news policy, and wondering whether the Minister feels the particular legislation proposed will meet this problem.
The other question I wish to ask relates to an argument I put forward here last week concerning the quid pro quo or the balance which was achieved by the Minister accepting the nationalization of Time and Reader's Digest in exchange for the protection of Canadian newspapers. I realize there is no way in which we can dragoon the Minister into telling us whether any kind of swap took

place. What takes place inside the Cabinet and within the party caucus is not for us who are outside to know, although we may guess. But I should like to put a bald question directly to the Minister right now with regard to this Time and Reader's Digest situation. Is the Minister pleased with what is in effect the nationalization of Time and Reader's Digest? My hon. friends say "naturalization". I say "nationalization" in the sense of a reference to nationality, not to public ownership.
I hope the Minister will remember this question. It is a very simple one. I should like to know whether he is pleased with the nationalization or naturalization of Time and Reader's Digest.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The other bit of information I wanted to give the Minister in connection with this matter, or the suggestion I make to him, is that he look at the Financial Post for last Thursday, where he will find on the rear page, I think it is, of the first or second part a full length ad taken by Reader's Digest setting out the various things it offers the Canadian advertiser. This is a very much itemized account giving all the advantages that advertisers have and the special services that advertisers can get through Reader's Digest in terms of specialization in markets, saturation of markets and all the rest.
I would like to ask the Minister how he can read an advertisement like that and not realize that Canadian magazines which do not have the resources of a parent company in the United States cannot possibly match that kind of appeal and that kind of advertising approach. It seems to me it is just impossible. That is one of the reasons I think the Minister might reconsider this particular clause of the Bill and the amendment that is now before the House.
I would assume that since the hon. Member for Red Deer has given notice of his intention to express by his vote how he feels about this whole question of Time and Reader's Digest, and since spokesmen of other parties in the House on the Opposition side have also given an indication that they support this particular amendment, we are in the position, problematically at least-this has worked out in the past but it may not work out this time-that the Government may be defeated on this particular motion. I am still unclear from what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister on Friday whether they are absolute in their interpretation that a defeat on the amend-
June 28, 1965

ment put forward by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is in substance, as far as they are concerned, a defeat of the Government that will lead to the dissolution of this House in the face of this lack of confidence in the Government. I feel that we deserve to hear this very clearly. It is certainly not going to affect my vote or, as far as I know, the votes of my colleagues, and I hope it will not affect the votes of any people in this House; but I think we should be completely clear on this point.
I feel that the recommendation both as it applies to Time and Reader's Digest and to newspapers is a reasonable one and should be accepted. It seems to me it is the kind of proposition, particularly in view of the feelings and arguments in the country relating to newspaper legislation, that should be considered by the Government. But if the Government is not prepared to consider an amendment like this and we are going to have the opportunity to vote on it, I think we need to know the answer to this question with complete clarity so we can vote, the Government Members can vote-and particularly those Government Members who are substantially critical of this part of the budget-in all honesty and we can have a real decision on this question. Then we can realize that we are voting on something more than a procedural motion and are voting on the life of this Government itself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what the Government's attitude is respecting the amendment before the House moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. As a matter of fact, in looking over what took place in the debate here last Friday I am also concerned about the several points of order raised concerning this particular amendment. However, Your Honour has seen fit to accept the motion as being in order; therefore I suppose there is no useful purpose to be served by going back over this matter and challenging or debating whether it is in order. But taking the situation that we have before us now and the amendment which calls for Bill No. C-118 to be referred back to the committee, and then trying to anticipate what the committee will do with it when it gets the bill referred back to it is a real problem, because on two occasions the House has in fact supported this particular provision.
I know there are members of the Opposition in our party, in the New Democratic
Income Tax Act
Party and other parties who are disturbed because this particular clause 4 was included with the budget resolutions and they had no opportunity to vote separately on it. Furthermore, it was established when we were on second reading that a private member is not competent to move an amendment either changing or deleting this provision. Therefore it is somewhat of a puzzle as to what the committee will do with this Bill if we support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. It has been pretty well established, I think, by Speakers' rulings over the years, and in fact in the debate on the resolution stage, second reading and Committee of the Whole House that a member of the opposition does not have the right to move an amendment that will upset the balance of Ways and Means. Citation 243 of Beauchesne's fourth edition says:
All Bills providing for.. .any expenditure whatever...must be first considered as resolutions in Committee of the Whole.
Then it goes on to say at the bottom of the paragraph:
The rule also applies to releasing or compounding any sum of money due to the Crown and to the imposition of any state tax-
Therefore it seems to me that even if we support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, unless the Minister of Finance is prepared to move an amendment that will achieve what the Member for Winnipeg North Centre wants, then there is no purpose in sending this provision back to the committee. So I think we should have some indication from the Minister of Finance as to whether he is prepared to move an amendment to clause 4 that will do that for which the Member for Winnipeg North Centre is asking. The hon. Member said, as reported at page 2879 of Hansard for last Friday:
What we are concerned about in asking for a reconsideration of clause 4 is that the House be given a chance to say that it wants subclause (2) of clause 4, namely the special exemptions for certain publications, removed from clause 4.
Even if this amendment is supported and we do send Bill No. C-118 back to the committee, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot move that amendment, and I think he acknowledged that fact in the statement he made last Friday before he moved the amendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. Member permit a question?

June 28. 1965
Income Tax Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In asking the question I agree with what the hon. Member has just said, but is it not appropriate for the House to express its opinion as to what the Government ought to do with the bill when we get back into Committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not arguing that point at the moment. I think it is appropriate for members of the Opposition to make representations to the Minister of Finance, to plead with him, or whatever else you call it, to move this kind of amendment to his bill. He could have decided to do this between the resolution stage and second reading of the bill. He could also have moved this kind of motion when clause 4 was before the Committee of the Whole. But he did not do so. He did not do so despite the pleadings of certain members of the Opposition. If he is not going to do so now, then it is a pure waste of time for the House to send this bill back to committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I just ask a question? Does the hon. Member not think the Minister of Finance and the Government will get some kind of message out of a successful vote on an amendment such as this?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are places in our rule book, although I do not have the citation right before me, which indicate that for any motion to be in order there must be some logical conclusion which can be reached. If we have not been able to convince the Minister of Finance of the validity of this point and that there is something wrong with clause 4, then unless he or some other Minister of the Crown intends to move an amendment to clause 4 in line with what is asked for by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre we are simply wasting the time of the House, in the first instance, and second we are probably attempting to reverse a decision made earlier by the House. That, Mr. Speaker, is also a violation to some extent of the rules of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh? Where?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Therefore it seems to me that we ought to hear from the Minister of Finance, before we take a vote on this motion, whether he is going to take the kind of action that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre hopes he is going to take. Because if he does not give that indication, Mr. Speaker, we move back into the committee stage and can do nothing. All the clauses have been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. Member permit another question. Is the hon. Member saying that if the Minister will not do what we want him to do, therefore we should not ask him to do it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well that if his amendment is carried, as we are now on third reading we will go back to the committee stage, where he will then sit helpless and unable to take further action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister will have to take the action.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He now admits that the Minister will have to move the motion. Therefore it seems to me that the Minister ought to indicate to the House whether he is prepared to move such a motion. Surely it would not make a great deal of difference if we went through all these motions, because we would then arrive at a point where there was complete stalemate, where no further action could be taken.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Could I ask the hon. Member a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this seems to be developing into a sort of quiz contest.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am wondering whether the hon. Member is not concerned that if the Minister did what he is suggesting he would not be exercising undue influence on the vote of Members of the House?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest that each Member who rises in his place ought to be attempting to influence other Members; that is not an unusual thing for him to do. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out in his speech on Friday that he is trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: to the Income Tax Act which were first introduced during the budget speech.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the hon. Member a question? Does he not remember last year when the Government introduced this very matter in a separate resolution in the name of the Prime Minister? Does he not remember that we assumed that this was because the Minister of Finance could not swallow it last year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, without being skilled in procedure, I wish to point out very briefly that it seems that the motion now before us is degenerating into a battle of procedural experts, and this I am not. However, it is my opinion that the procedure adopted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in linking his proposal to other measures is nothing but a move liable to mix up members of the house by having them pass two things at once, while perhaps they would have liked to pass one and reject the other. I know that some members on the government side have already objected publicly in this house to the favoured treatment shown Time and Reader's Digest. If these members changed their minds today, which I do not know, it may be that the Minister himself gave additional explanations. He may even, in caucus or elsewhere, have managed to convince the members on the government side; but he has not convinced all the members, at least not some of the opposition, and that is why I believe some of us shall have to vote against the government, that is for the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party.
If magazines are not able, on their own, to find readers in Canada, it is because they do not have the required qualities. Why then
Income Tax Act
favour them through special legislation, and that to the detriment of Canadian newspapers?
On the other hand, if the publishers of these magazines have further arguments to bring forward, let them do so before the committee. However, as things stand now, we are totally unable to vote in favour of one measure and against another. As the two proposals cannot be separated, we shall support the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
As regards the amendment being out of order, the decision rests with Mr. Speaker. If he so decides, we must submit to his ruling. If he decides that the amendment is in order, we must then vote and possibly indicate to the Minister of Finance that the house wishes him to change his stand. As a matter of fact, I believe that the statements against clause 4 have been so numerous that the Minister should have at least changed his mind or indicated to the house his willingness to re-examine the problem.
On the contrary the minister has always behaved in the house as if he were connected with the owners of those magazines, and even so, but I am not sure, he could always unburden his heart by telling those companies: "I had made a proposal to you, but the house has decided otherwise. Since we are in a democratic country, we must therefore bow to the house's decision."
This is what we are hoping on the part of the minister and even if it were only to express our views concerning this amendment, I think that part of the members of our group will support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would consider asking the House to give the Minister of Finance unanimous permission to answer a few of the questions which have been asked, particularly those in respect of the matter of confidence.


John George Diefenbaker: In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not require any leave. This is an amendment, and he would not be closing the debate in the event he spoke.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He spoke on Friday about three minutes.

June 28. 1965
Income Tax Act


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, apparently he has already spoken on the amendment and I was unaware of that fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he will ask the Leader of the Opposition some questions during his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, certainly the position is a most interesting one. When I listened to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat I was touched by the depth and sincerity of his appeal, as I am sure the Government must have been. Often in the past whenever the Government found itself in difficulty one could be assured that that hon. gentleman would do everything he could to preserve it.
His solicitation over the rules at the moment causes me to wonder whether this is a personal solicitation. He finds himself in a very desperate position, because his Leader spoke on Friday and made very clear the attitude his Party would take. I wish to read a portion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Red Deer, as follows:
-certainly an issue as important as the matter of foreign publications is one for which the fullest opportunity for debate and discussion should be provided. I can well understand that there are many Members of the Opposition parties and, if the truth were known, many Members on the Government side of the House as well, who are not satisfied with how this matter has been presented in the omnibus bill before us. I would agree with the mover of the amendment that there has not been an opportunity for Members of the House to express their opinions specifically on this issue and X believe it would be a good idea to refer the bill back to the Committee of the Whole House.
You will have noticed, Sir, that he had none of the fears that fill the heart of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat. I must say that in the years I have been here I have never heard a more touching appeal than that uttered by the hon. gentleman. It has not been very effective. The Government and the Minister are adamant. Oh, what hardness of the soul is apparent here on the part of the Government. So often in the past Members of the Government have been moved to compassion as they listened to the hon. Member doing his part to keep the Government out of difficulty. While the Minister cannot speak, there must be others who, with a lifeline like this thrown out by the hon. Member, could speak. Imagine his position; think of the solicitude of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat in his appeal for something to save the Government.

The hon. Member for Medicine Hat has given us an unequalled example of self-swallowing. I have never seen such an example in all the years I have been here. We know there is a position in any circus for a sword swallower, but the hon. Member is swallowing himself in his desire to help the Government. There are going to be vacancies in the Senate shortly, and there exists one now in respect of Alberta. I would hope that the Government, with that vacancy available, will not allow the day to pass without providing at least some recompense for such an attitude which, as I say, was so deeply touching.
The hon. Member's leader expressed a different view, but this is not the first time this has happened. I recall very well the circumstances of February, 1963, when the hon. Member for Red Deer spoke with such eloquence from about 20 minutes to 6 until six o'clock indicating that he was going to support the Government of that day.


Erik Nielsen: He got indigestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever happened between six and eight, suddenly at eight o'clock the logic of the pre-luncheon hour entirely changed. We will never know the reason for that.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. Member has a point of order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the leader of the official opposition should read the new book which was published today, "Commonsense for Canadians", by McClelland and Stewart, which gives a full and complete answer as to exactly what happened in February, 1963.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if there be any book on common sense for Canadians I am sure the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has never read it, keeping in mind that utter nonsense that was indulged in- duplicity, I call it-in February, 1963.
Apparently we are to have a repeat performance today, or one would imagine so having listened to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat attempt to twist around so he will be able to support the Government to which he has given such undying support throughout the past two years and two months. This is going to be an awful thing for that hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. Just imagine him having to vote with the Opposition, after counting heads
June 28, 1965

and beginning to wonder what the result will be. He has been doing some counting.


An hon. Member:: Where are your Members?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Members opposite apparently have been doing some counting as well, but I prefer the ability of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat to count, because he has some experience. He has done this before.
This afternoon that hon. Member has come along with the argument, which I tried to follow but found very difficult, that we should help the Government. He has asked "Can I not help you? You need help. Will you not follow the course I suggest? Will you tell us what you will do if you do not do that?" I have never heard an argument like that.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
However, I am glad to note the solicitude of the hon. gentleman because it will be interesting now for all of us to see him rise in his place and, after that illogical argument, have to support the amendment that is before the House, provided he is consistent and provided he is prepared to follow the leadership of his leader in this most important matter. The speech on Friday by the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) certainly was an illustration of common sense. I hope that the hon. Members sitting about him will be moved by his argument rather than by the pseudoargument of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).
Returning to this subject, I must say I was interested in the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). He has advocated freedom today. He spoke in Vancouver a day or so ago and, Mr. Speaker, this is one for the book. I think it ought to be placed on the record because it indicates his idea of freedom. He is afraid of some of those leftists in the ranks of the N.D.P. This is what the newspaper article says:
Douglas Fisher, national deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, says left-wing members of the party should keep quiet and the party gain power in Canada instead of worrying about what line is to be taken.
I do not know which one of you are going to identify yourself as belonging to this group that ought to keep quiet. Let me read on, because this is a concept of freedom that is scarcely in keeping with the views expressed by the hon. gentleman from time to time:
The former school teacher, now M.P. from Port Arthur, told a meeting of N.D.P. youth that a lot of party members are "so sure they're saved that
Income Tax Act
they don't realize we've got to save a lot more people if we're going to get to run the country."
Well, salvation is free, if you people sitting around the hon. gentleman will keep your mouths shut. I read on, because I have never read a dissertation on the subject of freedom to equal this. He said:
"We have to be a lot more broadminded, and much better organized."
Then, he said that his party is socialist by definition.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Socialist without any qualification.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a rebel in their midst. It is very fortunate for him he has already given notice he is not going to run next time because he is no longer in good standing. Let me read on:
-but this did not mean it would nationalize the means of production.
Well, I do not quite understand that. It is socialist, but it would not socialize the means of production. But he warns, Lord help the C.P.R. and The Bell Telephone. This is freedom. All of this appears in the speech of the hon. gentleman. Then, finally, he dealt with the necessity for centralization. Today he is most anxious to have the Minister speak to let the country know what is going to happen if the House dares to support the amendment. Well, so far as we are concerned, we are going to support that amendment. We are going to be consistent with our stand throughout. We are not going to indulge in any Pythagorian philosophy to determine our course. We think this bill is bad. We have taken our stand and we are supported in that stand by the influential press of Canada.
The Montreal Star of June 23, which has certainly been a continuing supporter of the Government, says:
Representatives of Time and Reader's Digest have spent the past eight years ceaselessly pressuring Canadian MPs and Cabinet Ministers.
I can say so far as I am concerned, that did not take place.
They have used every kind of persuasion, including the weight of the presidential office, to try and maintain a position which, on the grounds of justice and logic, is untenable.
The Government thought, rightly it turned out, that by coupling a good policy with a bad one it could push the bad policy through Parliament.
Finally the article, after quoting from a reporter's view that action should be taken in this regard ends up that it will have to

June 28, 1965
Income Tax Act
be done even if Mr. Luce has, as he is widely reported in Ottawa to have, about 40 United States Senators and at least as many Congressmen in his pocket. Now, I am going to say this in regard to Reader's Digest. They have not endeavoured to impose on Canadians their thinking. They have not tried, at any time, to direct or channel the thinking of Canadians. On the other hand, Time magazine, and I repeat this, has devoted itself to interpreting the news and rewriting it so as to direct Canadian thinking. It is not a Canadian magazine. It has three or four pages of Canadian news in each issue which makes it a counterfeit issue when it pretends to be Canadian. It uses these four pages to give its viewpoint, which is not the Canadian viewpoint, to Canadians week after week. To what purpose? It is to tell Canadians what they should do, as viewed through the eyes of a periodical that scarcely ever contains a mention of Canada in any of its international news.
This is what has to be guarded against, and that is the reason we accepted, in part, the recommendations of the O'Leary Commission, to the end that Canadians would not finally, as a result of unjust competition, be denied Canadian magazines with a Canadian viewpoint and have to substitute therefor, as a result of competition that cannot be met, the views of those who edit those four pages of Time for Canadians.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We have no reason to alter our viewpoint that this thing is wrong. What has the Government done? The Minister dug himself in. He has done more digging of himself into difficulties than any other Minister in history. He wants an election before redistribution. He spoke the other day in Toronto and stated that there would be an election this fall. I thought prime ministers determined that, but in the absence of the Prime Minister the Minister of Finance said there would be an election this fall, before redistribution.
Is that the reason that he dug himself in on this? He laughs, he smiles, but he has revealed that he is the determinant as to when elections take place in Canada. The Prime Minister said he had no idea of an election, but the Minister of Finance says, "Get ready for this fall, because it is going to take place before redistribution." I can understand his feelings in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said at the coast.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of what had been said opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which came first, the hen or the egg?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman has been the water boy for the Government for so long. He always reminds me of the water boy that Claudius used to have walking ahead of him with the water. Every time I see the hon. gentleman rising I think of the water boy of Roman days.
What I said was that everything pointed to an election this fall on the basis of what was being said. This is what is coming from Liberal headquarters. The Prime Minister does not have anything to say about it because the chief organizer announces what is going to take place, and this time he has the assistance of the Minister of Finance. The Minister took a strong, stubborn stand that "we stand or fall on what we place before the House."
In conclusion I quote a couple of paragraphs from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 25:
The Canadian Parliament's first legal interference with the press is being rushed into the statute books as if the Government, ashamed of its policy, were anxious to finish a disagreeable job as soon as possible and forget it.
Finally it ends up:
The resistance to the advertising tax by almost every important newspaper in the country should have told Mr. Gordon that not only his tax but his whole program of narrow nationalism and state meddling in all aspects of society goes against the grain of Canada's life. Perhaps from the distant, clarifying perspective of London Mr. Pearson began to suspect, very late, that his Minister of Finance and his close friend is also his heaviest political liability.
I think this legislation is bad. I believe it contravenes the Bill of Rights in that it permits an interference with freedom of the press. Freedom of the press comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, if my reading of the Social Credit cases in the Supreme Court in 1938 is correct. That being so, why bulldoze through the House legislation that has been condemned out of hand in every part of our nation?
The other day I asked why is this introduced? Who asked for it? What newspaper in Canada has asked for it? The Minister cannot answer that question for no newspaper asked for this kind of action to be taken and every one, with the exception of two, state that it is retrograde and dangerous.
To me it indicates that bureaucratic attitude that eight former members of the civil
June 28, 1965

service developed while holding those positions. They think they know what is good for Canadians, but as I have watched the faces of Members opposite, not of the Cabinet, I have seen in their faces and I have even heard it rumoured that they have said they cannot understand why this is being pressured. I can only conclude that the Minister of Finance, having suffered so many hurtful wounds in two years and two months as Minister, wants to be able to say, "At last I got something through the House."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

June 28, 1965
Interim Supply


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

["Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: The hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-John Darrell Peters-alleged unfairness in sentence; the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau)- proposed conference on drought conditions in Ottawa Valley; the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos)-Veterans affairs-request\nExpropriation Act\nfor cancellation of World War I overseas requirement.\nIt being six o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.\n[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)"]
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,292,282.42, being the aggregate of:
(a)	four twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except external affairs item 15, mines and technical surveys item 70: and external affairs item 20 for which the proportioan is three twelfths, $1,456,413,323;
(b)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 25 and 45, legislation item 15, and loans, investments and advances item L30 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $4,664,625;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of northern affairs and national resources item 15, (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $2,258,500;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 5 and 60, fisheries item 10, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, northern affairs and national resources item 45, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $9,566,025;
(e)	seven twelfths of all the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (b) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, $162,394,142.75;
(f)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 17b, 25b and 35b, mines and technical surveys item 70b, and loans, investments and advances item L78b, (Schedule D) of the said supplementary estimates, $7,245,666.67;
(g)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of finance item 15b, (Schedule E) of the said supplementary estimates, $8,750,000,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Chairman, this resolution covers the items which you have just read. It will have been noted by Members of the committee that there was no reference to the amounts covered in Supplementary Estimates (C) that were tabled earlier today. They will have to be dealt with separately.
I should also point out that the resolution covers additional borrowing authority for $750 million for authorized payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund through the issue of treasury bills, Canada Savings Bonds, marketable securities and so on.

The portions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to October 31, 1965, apart from the amounts covered by Supplementary Estimates (C).
In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of Members to criticize or discuss any item in the estimates when they come up for consideration in Committee of Supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
Mr. Chairman, when we are in the committee stage of our proceedings, I will be glad to answer in detail any questions hon. Members may wish to ask in respect of these items.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is asking the House to grant supply for four months, to the end of October, yet we have had no indication of the usual type, from the ministry. There are a number of matters in view of the fact that we are being asked to grant interim supply for four months, which I certainly feel should be drawn to the attention of the Government before we even begin our consideration of this request.
First of all I should like to deal with a matter that comes under the purview of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps some explanation can be given as to why certain steps were taken, and why it took so long to take them. I hope the Minister will be in a position to reply.
During the last session I placed question No. 3,016 on the order paper, addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, concerning one Aniello De Luca of Montreal. The Minister replied through his Parliamentary Secretary on March 31, 1965. If hon. Members will consult page 12993 of Hansard for March 31, 1965, they will see in detail both the question and the answer. The answer indicates that this individual was taken into custody under the authority of a warrant for arrest issued under section 15(1) of the Immigration Act, signed by the Director of Special Services of the Immigration Branch on March 17, 1965 on the basis of a report received pursuant to section 19(l)(e)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration Act, which stated that Mr. De Luca had been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code and had be-
June 28, 1965

come an inmate of a jail. The report also indicated that bail had been refused. I understand also that this man was being detained under a charge laid under the Immigration Act and under charges under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Subsequently I made a further inquiry of the Minister as to what had happened to De Luca, by way of question No. 711 which appeared in Votes and Proceedings of June 10, 1965. I should like to read this question and answer in detail. The question is:
1.	What was the conclusion of the inquiry under the Immigration Act referred to in the answer to Question No. 3,016 under date of March 31. 1965, concerning one Aniello De Luca, of Montreal?
2.	Is Aniello De Luca still under detention and, if so, where and under what circumstances and, if not, when was he released?
3.	What was the outcome of the proceedings under the Juvenile Delinquents Act as referred to in the answer to Question No. 3,016 above?
4.	What further steps, if any, are under consideration with regard to this man and his future stay in Canada?
And the reply is as follows:
1.	The inquiry under the Immigration Act revealed that Aniello De Luca had acquired Canadian domicile and was therefore not subject to deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act at that time.
2.	No. He was released from detention on April 12, 1965.
3.	According to information received by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. De Luca was not convicted of one charge under the Juvenile Delinquents Act and two other charges were withdrawn.
4.	None.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.


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



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: The hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-John Darrell Peters-alleged unfairness in sentence; the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau)- proposed conference on drought conditions in Ottawa Valley; the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos)-Veterans affairs-request
Expropriation Act
for cancellation of World War I overseas requirement.
It being six o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



EXPROPRIATION ACT


Robert Norman Thompson: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to amending the provisions of the Expropriation Act (R.S.C. 1952, c. 106) with a view to giving greater protection to citizens against arbitrary interference with their property rights by departments of the federal government, and to the establishment of more suitable procedures for the transfer of title and possession of land expropriated under the authority of this Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to suggest to the House that it is urgent that consideration be given to amending the Act respecting the expropriation of lands. This year the free world celebrates the 750th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta and the 700th anniversary of parliamentary government. Both of these historic occasions are reminders that freedom is indivisible, the freedom of one group must ultimately become the freedom of all. Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury said that Magna Carta was the act of one group, one order of the realm, asserting its own right; it was a cold, businesslike document, agreeing that certain political abuses must cease. I am convinced that the lesson of Magna Carta is as relevant today as it was in 1215 or at any time since.
The history of Parliament is the record of the resistance of the representatives of the people to the usurpation of powers by the Crown. I believe it would be foolish indeed to believe that, because we have a constitutional parliamentary government, we as the representatives of the people are not faced with the duty of keeping the powers of the Crown under control. In this spirit it has been brought forcibly to my attention to take a close look at the remarkable powers the Crown is at present given by statutes, in so far as the laws of expropriation are concerned.
It might be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that in time of war and imminent danger to this country, the Federal Government should have such powers; but today such powers belong in

June 28, 1965
Expropriation Act
the War Measures Act, and not in any peacetime legislation. We already have far too much punitive federal law on our statute books. I am thinking particularly here of some of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, which may be justifiable during the time of national emergency but which are an open threat to the liberty and property of the citizen, now that war has been over for nearly 20 years. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the laws of this land, as they concern expropriation of private property were designed for a time of emergency, and certainly not for a time of peace such as we are living in at the moment.
As I interpret the Expropriation Act parliament has given officers of the civil service, down to the junior level, the right to deprive a citizen of the land which he owns merely by filing a plan in the registry office, leaving the citizen with nothing but the right to go to court to receive just payment for his land. There is no need to follow the usual provincial laws for the transfer of title. There is no need for a public hearing to ascertain whether or not any particular parcel of land is needed for public purposes. Powers like these contained in the Act relating to the expropriation of lands belong in a War Measures Act and certainly not in peacetime legislation.
Here in Ottawa many a home owner has awakened in the morning to read in the newspaper that his home has been included in expropriation plans of the day or the week before. I think, Mr. Speaker, that such should not be the case. I have in my files a number of letters and a number of briefs and submissions that have been made concerning the powers of expropriation which have been passed on by federal law to the National Capital Commission. Many of the citizens of this city feel there has been a flagrant abuse of the powers of expropriation. I should like to refer to the brief submitted to the National Capital Commission by the residents of the Rothwell Heights section, in the eastern section of the city. We read this:
We can understand that the Government should allow homes to be seized for a road, bridge, a school or some other essential purpose. We are totally unable to understand that the Government should allow homes to be wantonly destroyed to provide landscaped grounds for a suburban driveway.
Under present legislation, no citizen of Ottawa has firm title to his own land. Any day he may read in the newspaper, as we did, that following a secret decision of all-powerful officials, his home has been seized for some trivial reason without right of appeal.

I could go on to cite any number of cases which justify my contention that this Act should be rewritten. I do not have the time at my disposal this afternoon to give too many further illustrations that the powers of expropriation that are presently in the hands of the National Capital Commission are too broad. I could refer to the Silver Springs Farm, just west of town. From the records of the expropriation of this property, I do not see how anyone can believe that the rights of property ownership, which are basic in a democracy, are properly respected. These cases cover not only such property as Rothwell Heights and Silver Springs Farm but include any number of other properties here in the city.
Amongst the letters that have come to me in protest of these actions is one written by Mrs. Pilon, a woman in this city who does not have the power in her own hands to look after her rights. She says in a letter that she would like to tell me of her experience with the Federal District Commission, and I quote:
I know It is too late now for me to get any help but my experience might benefit someone else who is under expropriation.
A little over ten years ago my property which was approximately four acres was expropriated by the then F.D.C. It was situated on lot 27 Hare Avenue where the Putman Public School is now situated.
Then she goes on to tell of the ridiculously low price which was offered to her for the property; how she turned it down. Later, they offered her $7,500, and then they came back in further bargaining to offer $8,700. Finally, under protest at the continual pressure she was under she had to sell the property at an extremely low price without any attempt on the part of the National Capital Commission to protect her right to the property.
This goes much further than the National Capital Commission here, in Ottawa. The files of the courts, and I am sure many of the files of the departments, are filled with examples of how the Government, in peacetime and without warning, without having to say that this property was necessary for expropriation without returning to the rightful owner land that was expropriated once its use was no longer required, has expropriated lands. One particularly important case is the case of August Fontanna, a man living in Virden, Manitoba, who had his land expropriated for use as a federal airport during the war emergency.
June 28, 1965

June 28, 1965
Expropriation Act
tion, except in time of war, a public hearing should be held before a judge so that everyone can be satisfied that it is in the public interest for the land to be taken. No citizen, 1 believe, should ever be deprived of his property without at least having the privilege of his "day in court".
Likewise the exact method of expropriation should be spelled out in the act, such as the number of days notice to be given, with a safeguard that land would not be expropriated unnecessarily or by mistake, as has been done in past years.
I would suggest a clause be inserted elsewhere in the statutes of Canada guaranteeing a Canadian citizen the right to own property, and that this should be specifically quoted in the expropriation laws. We need that assurance.
I have looked over other sections of the Act which are important also. I believe far more trouble should be taken to assimilate federal expropriation procedure with the normal land title procedures of the respective provincial governments. Much confusion results from the fact that the filing of a plan can deprive a man of ownership of his land.
I notice that in section 7 of the Act there is no provision requiring the Government to expropriate the areas taken up by survey markers and national monuments that might be on or adjacent to such land, and such a provision should be inserted.
All one has to do is to ride around this city and the green belt area to see how many of these survey markers and monuments are left out of expropriated land, and which are now being defaced and destroyed. This is something that is not in the best interests of the public.
Another point which shows the complete inadequacy and foolishness of the act is concerned with section 16. This section deals with "any tenant in tail or for life, seigneur, guardian, tutor"-and a number of other people like lunatics, idiots, and married women-and I submit that the expression "married women" must be removed from that section. In a civilized society like we have in Canada we must assume married women are sane unless, like other human beings, they are declared otherwise.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Section 22 deals with warrants for possession, and this section should include a paragraph which would outline all ethical, humane and honest legal steps that should

be taken before force is used. In my home community I have a neighbour, a man bom on a certain area of land. It belonged to his father before him. It had been passed on by his father to this man, his brother and mother. The land was required by the Department of National Defence and it was expropriated by the method I have outlined. It was taken from him, even though the title in Edmonton said he owned the land. The Government built communications towers on the land. I was astonished when, in January, 1964, I was called-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time alloted to the hon. Member has expired, and unless there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you, I shall be brief. I thank all Members of the House. Anyway, I was called because this man needed help. When I reached this parcel of land I found that the Canadian Army had moved in. A whole truckload of soldiers were running across the fields in snow up to their waists, trying to catch the hogs, chickens and cattle which they were about to remove forcibly from the land, because this man had refused to submit to the expropriation order which, in this particular case, had come directly from Ottawa. I never dreamt that such a situation could arise in Canada. There are many complications attached to this case but I mention it as an example of the way in which a government or a department can use the tremendous power provided by the present legislation respecting expropriation.
I will close with a quotation from the Globe and Mail of June 14, 1965. The heading of this editorial is "Expropriation and injustice go hand in glove".
Government expropriation of private property is an unfortunate necessity in the planned development of municipalities, metropolitan areas and provincial districts. But the rules which govern expropriation should require that the needs of the property owner be weighed against the needs of the state. They should assure the property owner meticulously fair compensation and every assistance in making a convenient move. Government planners should tell property owners when their land is to be expropriated and they should tell them as soon as a decision is made. If an unconscionable time is to elapse between decision on expropriation and the actual takeover of the land, the owner should be repaid the losses he might suffer if the district stagnates while his property is in limbo. If he wishes to move at once the expropriating body should be required to accommodate him.
I think this article sums up most adequately what I have said. I believe it is not
June 28, 1965

good enough to expect a property owner, a man who may often not have much of this world's goods, to take up his case in the Exchequer Court, the only court of appeal open to him at this time. I know of only one case in Ottawa, despite the volume of N.C.C. proceedings, where this has been done, and in this case, having committed himself to costs of $28,000, the appellant had to withdraw.
This is not the kind of security that owners of property in this country should receive.
I wish the Government, in its zeal to make Canada a better country to live in, would take up this matter and bring in the necessary amendments to give us a proper expropriation authority, and I hope this can be done before the present session concludes.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) upon bringing this matter before the House. Those who have been around this chamber as long as I have-and I do not see any at the present time-will recall that this particular grievance has been mine since 1947 or 1948. I continued year after year, to call on the government of the day to give us a new Expropriation Act which would deal more fairly with the rights of citizens.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a few previous speeches so that Members may know that on many occasions I have objected to the present method of expropriation. For example, in 1955 as recorded in Hansard at page 6910, I urged the Government to consider doing something about the method of acquiring land used by the Federal District Commission-it was the Federal District Commission in those days. At that time I said:
The use of the Expropriation Act in its present form is really not called for. I have always contended that the Expropriation Act was not meant to be used to acquire land of this type or under the circumstances in which the Federal District Commission is acquiring land at the present time. I realize it is a long time since I went to law school but I have always looked upon the Expropriation Act as being a violation of civil rights. I submit that it should be used sparingly by the Crown only in cases of great public interest, such as the acquisition of land for post offices, wharves, national defence buildings and so on. It should not be used too readily. If it is to be used as in the present case all advantages should devolve upon the party whose property is being expropriated. On behalf of those hundreds of people whose properties have been expropriated in the district here and who are voicing discontent over this procedure, may I say that I hope the government will see that this parliamentary committee to be set up next
Expropriation Act
session will make a complete study of the use of the Expropriation Act in acquiring land.
The time that elapses in the settlement of these cases is far too long.
It may surprise hon. Members to know that in some cases it takes as long as five years to reach a settlement.
In the following year, 1956, I said:
I shall only repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that I consider that the Expropriation Act, being an impingement upon the civil rights of a citizen, should be used lightly, sparingly but generously. Many of our people are not very happy. Hundreds of homes in this area have been expropriated by the Federal District Commission. There was no question of going to court. A private citizen cannot go to court against the government when an amount of $10,000 or $12,000 is involved, though big corporations or religious institutions can afford to do so because the amount involved is substantial. I have had very many complaints.
This is only to show that on many occasions in the past I was impelled to urge the government and the House to do something about the Expropriation Act. My sentiments go deeper. They are like those of the hon. Member for Red Deer, because I am one who is greatly in favour of the rights of private citizens, and particularly of the right to hold private property. I take special objection to that section of the Act which defines public work as being any work which the Minister decides is so. This is a relic of feudal days. There is no court or other body which has the power to decide whether or not the Minister has used his discretionary power correctly. As I said to my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Francis) a while ago, if the Minister were to decide that my chimney was a public work, it would be a public work and that is the end of it. All he has to do is to file a plan, serve notice, and the property belongs to the Government.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Therefore I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the first section which should be amended in the Expropriation Act is that which defines under what circumstances the property of a citizen of Canada may be expropriated. I believe that this section should be clearly defined. The Crown, in the year 1965 in any event, should not have the right to decide that it can expropriate anything at the whim of a Minister who has been advised by an official of a department of government.
Furthermore, when dealing with real property one must keep in mind that real property is a civil right which really is under the jurisdiction of the province. My contention

June 28, 1965
Expropriation Act
has been for all these years that in expropriating property for works which were not exactly or really for the use of the Crown in the right of Canada, the Government was impinging upon provincial rights. There are many circumstances, I claim, where if the Crown wants to expropriate property it should do so through the agency of the province or of the municipality.
There are now some cases, which I will not mention, before the Exchequer Court which deal with that particular angle. I feel, as I have always felt, that the right to expropriate by the Crown in the right of Canada should be limited to those public works which properly can be defined as works of the Dominion of Canada. I do not need to recall that some years ago this very argument was raised by a former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Maurice Duplessis, and I never heard that this contention was denied. There is, therefore, an area to be cleared up in the Expropriation Act, namely the definition of what is a public work.
I want it understood at this time, Mr. Speaker, that when I am speaking about the Expropriation Act I am not trying to attack the methods of expropriation taken by the N.C.C. or the Federal District Commission. After all, those bodies only carried on their duties with the assistance of an Act which was antiquated, and was the only means which the Government put at their disposal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not want it to be taken that they could have done otherwise. They had to use the Expropriation Act as it stood. I blame successive governments for not having done anything about amending the Expropriation Act. Of course, there are real grievances with regard to the Expropriation Act besides the definition of what is a public work. There is the question of the method of settlement, the tender of an offer, the interest to be paid until settlement, and also the distribution of court costs.
Only a few years ago a former Minister of Justice, Hon. Donald Fleming, brought before the House an Act respecting the expropriation of land. That Act received first reading on October 3, 1962. There are very good suggested amendments to the present Expropriation Act contained in that bill. Certainly they should be incorporated in any bill which is to be brought before this House for consideration. Furthermore, I think the Government should take cognizance of the work done by the Ontario Commission which sat for about two years investigating the methods of

expropriation of land in Ontario. I do not know what has been done about this study. I hope the Government at the next session in the fall, or next year, will have produced a bill to be presented to this House which will incorporate some of the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and myself; but I would hope that at the same time such a bill would be sent to a committee for examination and discussion. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the opportunity to some other hon. Members to speak on this matter. I hope once again that this is the last time we will have to appeal to any government to produce a new Expropriation Act.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. Member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion, which represents a principle that has concerned Members on all sides of this House. Looking back on the record I note that on October 3, 1962, the Minister of Justice at that time, Hon. Donald Fleming, introduced a bill which was then given the number C-50. It was described in his words as a "comprehensive measure relating to government expropriation. It will replace the present Expropriation Act. It is more than a mere codification or consolidation; it will introduce new provisions as well". That bill received first reading in this House, but unfortunately did not receive second or third readings; it did not become enacted into law.
The hon. Member for Essex East, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), also in 1962 introduced a private Member's bill dealing with this subject. I think it is quite clear that interest in the rectification of the present legislation extends to many quarters of this House, and indeed the views which have been so clearly and so well expounded by the mover of this motion are shared by many hon. Members.
The problem is not only one, as my colleague from Ottawa East pointed out, of the Federal Government; it is a problem which faces the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities. It is a power which is frequently given to many public bodies by their charter. I noted from the press, for example, and was a little shocked by this, the charges raised against my alma mater, the University of Toronto, in connection with an expropriation proceeding, where it was alleged that there was a conflict of interest in taking certain lands which were occupied, in contrast to certain lands which were unoccupied.
June 28, 1965

I do not quite know what the facts are, but when a question is raised it is quite clear that there is the possibility of injustice, and measures which would set out appropriate appeal procedures in connection with the decision, in the first instance, as to whether the property should or should not be taken should be spelled out in legislation.
In the particular constituency I have the honour to represent in this House a very large portion of the lands have been subject to expropriation procedures for green belt purposes. I am not quite sure what the order is, but it is of the order of 15 per cent of the entire land surplus of the riding I represent. It is a fairly substantial amount, and in dollar terms it is even more substantial. There have been many problems in this connection. I listened with a great deal of interest to some of the case histories which have been read into the record by the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). The first name he mentioned is the name of a widow well known to myself. I was an alderman of the city council at the time of the events to which reference was made. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my own history of dealings with the National Capital Commission I think there is an effort to be fair. There is the procedure of a land committee. The land committee is a matter of public record. Any annual report of the National Capital Commission can be presented. They review every purchase, and have a procedure through which they use outside evaluators. These outside evaluators make records. The individual concerned can, if he wishes, hire an independent evaluator-appraiser and the results can be put together.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
In tendering for land, in the 1962 period there was a serious problem in Ottawa resulting from the rapid inflation of land prices. In the early 50's prices of the order of $1,200 per acre were a well substantiated figure in the area in which expropriation took place. Land prices rose very rapidly during this period and it was very difficult to be fair to the public and the individuals concerned. All I can say is that in my own experience the National Capital Commission has attempted, especially where a widow of modest means is involved in a situation like this, to be more than fair in dealing with such situation. Perfect justice is not meted out in this world in our courts or by the National Capital Commission or other bodies, but on balance I have had very few instances where the difficulties have been
Expropriation Act
such that I would be tempted to condemn public expropriation proceedings.
However, there have been some cases. The type of problem which I think should be given a good deal more attention than it presently receives in the development of expropriation policies under the green belt is that which involves a number of small businesses. I think in particular of the motel type of operation. A motel operation in the late 1950's could frequently be carried on the basis of cabins with a fairly small number of units and with a small dining room. This was a successful enterprise at that time. There are instances where expropriation has taken lands adjacent to and surrounding such a motel. This puts the motel in a situation where it cannot expand and the owner lives under a cloud of uncertainty as to whether or not he will be permitted to continue. There is no incentive to modernize and keep up with the times.
Frequently a small owner caught in this type of situation suffers a great deal. There are at least two or three instances of this nature which have been brought to my attention where I think there is the possibility that an injustice is being done. I say a possibility; I am not making any allegations in clear terms because the rights and wrongs and the full adding up of all the equities involved is a complicated business. But I think we should consider a procedure somewhat similar to that adopted in tax appeal cases.
I think that the legislation which was introduced in 1962 had a very desirable feature. It spelled out an interest rate of 5 per cent and then went on to provide that a tender must be made at the time of expropriation, interest running until the tender is submitted at double the rate. Therefore until the tender for the property was made interest would be payable at 10 per cent, which was a very strong incentive to the Crown agency involved to make a prompt tender in specific terms-which is surely the starting point for the rights of the party whose land has been expropriated. Another desirable feature which was very important was what I had in mind suggesting something like an income tax appeal board to which recourse by way of appeal could be had promptly and inexpensively. The problem in such cases is the expense involved. The party concerned may have substantial equities, but the equities are not in the form of liquid assets; they are in the form of property. A fairly valuable piece of property is involved amounting to a sizeable sum of money, but the owner of the property

June 28. 1965
Expropriation Act
does not have cash in the bank to hire the solicitors, the outside experts and the large number of technically trained persons necessary in this day and age to carry a fight on up to the Exchequer Court of Canada; and this imposes a strain on the resources of the party concerned which may constitute, in some instances, a denial of justice.
Surely a procedure should be evolved by which the cost could be more readily assumed, if we are to use courts as the test of these matters by the Crown. In this way the Crown could then say to the parties that this was the procedure by which their rights would be determined and the cost of such procedure would not be a deterrent to them in the exercise of this remedy. I think the procedure involved in income tax appeals is an eminently sound one. The costs are there, it is true, but the kind of decision which is made is usually a clear decision on the merits and it is arrived at reasonably promptly. This procedure has been evolved to deal with even more complex situations than are involved in expropriation of properties, and on the whole I think it has worked fairly successfully.
I should like to think that we could develop this principle in our legislation, spelling it out in more detail, such legislation, I would hope, being introduced by a Member representing the Government party in this House at some later date. I know that evidence of concern about property is clearly on the record, just as the concern expressed by my colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) a few minutes ago, a concern extending over some time, is one genuinely and sincerely held by him. It is also shared by many hon. Members on this side, including Members of the Government. But the development of legislation is not a simple matter. We on this side of the House have attempted to do many things in a relatively short period. This is one of the items, Mr. Speaker, on which I hope there will be further action at a later period.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of observations respecting the procedures followed under the Expropriation Act by the federal Government, and in particular there has been a reference to the fact that a bill to amend the Expropriation Act, in effect to repeal the existing statute and replace it with new provisions, was introduced in this House in October, 1962. That bill was the product of

considerable study by officials of the Department of Justice, and while it was introduced by the Minister of that day it was not called forth for further discussion by the Government of that day after its introduction.
Subsequent to the introduction of the bill the Department has received some comment on the terms of the proposed changes in the law. These have been and are being taken into consideration. Also since the introduction of the bill there have been a number of significant court decisions bearing on the existing law, and one decision in particular in the Supreme Court of Canada which has involved to a degree a new departure in the existing law, which has given law officers of the Crown reason to re-examine the bill introduced at that time to see whether through amendment the bill might be brought more into conformity with the law.
The hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) posed the proposition that essentially expropriation legislation should be emergency legislation only. I am afraid that I will have to disagree with that statement. I think on reflection that the hon. Member would agree that there are circumstances, even in peacetime, when governments, be they federal, provincial or municipal, must take land. On the other hand, I think it is agreed everywhere that governments must act reasonably and fairly and without any evidence of arbitrariness in the taking of land.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. I may not have heard him clearly, but did he say my proposal was that this should be emergency legislation only? Is that what the hon. Member said?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. I noted down the observation of the hon. Member that the laws of expropriation are designed for emergencies, not for peacetime. I understood the hon. gentleman to go on to say that he did not feel expropriation was appropriate action for the Government to take in time of peace.


Robert Norman Thompson: I must correct the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, because I did not say that at all. I said that we must have a law geared to peacetime needs and any emergency could fall under the terms of the War Measures Act or some such appropriate legislation. I am sure the hon. Member has misunderstood me and if he examines Hansard he will see what I said.
June 28, 1965

[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to misconstrue what the hon. Member said; if I did misunderstand him let me hasten to correct it. However, I think the correction made by the hon. Member illustrates the proposition: that all hon. Members will agree on the absolutes of this problem. On the one hand there is the necessity for governments from time to time having to take, pursuant to the power of eminent domain, the use and occupation of land; and on the other hand, under the obligation of democratic governments, to act reasonably and fairly with regard to those citizens who may be adversely affected by such action.
The problem is really that of finding the appropriate procedure of administrative action to be taken in between. To some hon. Members who are familiar with some of the great issues in administrative law in past years, the famous English case of Crichel Down will be recalled, in which I believe the Minister of Agriculture had taken a certain portion of the farm for wartime purposes and had adamantly refused to reconvey it to the owner, even though the Crown no longer required it.
Essentially there are two problems here which hon. Members have touched upon but which, however, are distinct. First, several Members have touched upon the question of the reasonableness of a decision taken by an expropriating authority in taking the land itself. The policy of taking land must in essence have been decided by the Government itself, when it decided to carry forward a general plan of action. Presumably hon. Members will agree that this should be worked out by the Government itself as an incident of the general proposals which it is proposing to carry out. This question relates to the extent that the policy should be carried out, and whether or not two acres is enough or whether it should be five or seven; or whether the road, if it is to be a road, should be run through here or there, and to the question as to the extent that members of the public should be able to intervene and, by administrative action, try to show that the Government decision is unreasonable. That was the situation in the Crichel Down case and involves perhaps one of the most difficult questions in administrative law.
The bill introduced in this House in 1962 did not deal with that particular area of the question. It assumed the discretion on the part of any Minister of the Crown, acting in 22620-188
Expropriation Act
his proper sphere, to take land. The bill dealt with the second problem, namely the procedures and manner of the action to be followed when land is actually to be taken over, and it is in this connection that I think we can identify several objections which have been made by Members on various sides of the House as to the procedure which now exists in the law.
If I may, I perhaps can place them in this order. The requirement of notice; not only the putting of notice on the land title register, but also the requirement that some actual notice other than registration be given to the owner whose land is in fact being taken. You can imagine the number of people in a lifetime who would normally have their titles checked, or how many people in a lifetime would bother to go and see them personally, to look for an expropriation notice. The answer to that suggestion is, very few. I think this is not an unreasonable suggestion, that actual notice in writing should be given so that people will know that an issue has been raised in regard to the particular land and will thereby know exactly what the issue is. I would be glad to pass that suggestion on for consideration by the Government.
In this connection not only will the actual owners of the land be affected but also those who have some outstanding interest in the land, such as those who might benefit from right of way. They may have only the right to pass over the land. Perhaps notice should also be given to those individuals.
Second, there has also been a question raised as to the delay of compensation. As the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) pointed out, an attempt has been made in the bill to impose punitive interest rates for any delay which takes place in respect of the land.
Third, there has been a question raised in respect of what happens after the initial use is exhausted, and whether, the Government having divested itself of the land, it should be returned to the former owner at cost. The suggestion here is that among those who should be entitled to compete for the land is the original owner, if he is still in the neighbourhood and still owns contiguous lands, and that he should have the privilege of bidding pre-emptively for the land, with the value of the resale price to be decided by arbitration.
The fourth problem is that which relates to the cost of proceedings. There is a certain level of interest in respect of a $100,000 piece

June 28, 1965
Expropriation Act
of property, and presumably the owner of the property will have no alternative but to litigate. However, in respect of a $5,000 or $7,000 piece of property-perhaps not very valuable by some individuals' standards but very valuable to a particular owner-this poses a very serious question relating to the possibility of incurring legal costs in excess of the actual return he will get from the property. The hon. Member for Carleton referred to the previous bill and the specific reference to the costs of these proceedings being paid by the Crown. Perhaps that might be the answer and that counsel acting on behalf of the Crown in appropriate cases should be allowed to pay costs of expropriation arbitrations.
The one thing I should like to make clear before taking my seat, however, has regard to a suggestion put forward by several hon. Members in relation to the ultimate right of the federal Government under expropriation law. This was referred to particularly by hon. Members in relation to the provisions of section 92(13) of the British North America Act, covering property and civil rights in the province. I think it is useful to mention to the House that under the provisions of section 92(10), while local works and undertakings-this is a phrase to be taken to include most real estate that might be expropriated-come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, by subsection (c) of that provision the federal Government is given power over such works, although as a whole situate within the province, as are declared to be in the interest of Canada as a whole. It is under that authority that the federal Government not only has the power to take the rights of a private citizen in land, but the rights of provincial governments themselves.
Mr. Speaker, hon. Members have made a number of valuable suggestions which I will take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the law officers of the Crown in their consideration of the Expropriation Bill.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the hon. Member a question? In the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary, does the Government anticipate bringing forward legislation of this kind before the end of this session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must confess to the hon. Member that I do not have the authority to commit the Government in that regard. I do know this question has been receiving intensive consideration and I am hopeful that a bill in this regard will not be de-

layed. I cannot commit the Government any more definitely than that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for consideration of private Members' business has expired. It being seven o'clock the House will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,292,282.42, being the aggregate of:
(a)	four twelfths of the total of all the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except external affairs item 15, mines and technical surveys item 70; and external affairs item 20 for which the proportion is three twelfths, $1,456,413,323;
(b)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 25 and 45, legislation item 15, and loans, investments and advances item L30 (Schedule A) of the said main estimates, $4,664,625;
(c)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of northern affairs and national resources item 15, (Schedule B) of the said main estimates, $2,258,500;
(d)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of agriculture items 5 and 60, fisheries item 10, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60. national film board item 1, northern affairs and national resources item 45, (Schedule C) of the said main estimates, $9,566,025;
(e)	seven twelfths of all the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (b) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, $162,394,142.75;
(f)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of agriculture items 17b, 25b and 35b, mines and technical surveys item 70b, and loans, investments and advances item L78b, (Schedule D) of the said supplementary estimates, $7,245,666.67;
(g)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of finance item 15b, (Schedule E) of the said supplementary estimates, $8,750,000, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.
['Next sitting.']
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, before six o'clock I had placed on the record the answers I received on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in respect of the De Luca matter, but there are certain questions which arise from those replies.
If De Luca, whose records were readily available to the Department of Immigration, was apprehended on March 17, why was it that it took until April 12 to determine that he had sufficient domicile in the country so as not to be subject to deportation proceedings? How is it that it took 25 days to make this determination, during which time he was confined to Bordeaux jail when, and this is
June 28, 1985

patently clear to me, the officials of that Department had this man's records before them, knew when he entered the country and knew the date on which he was apprehended? Domicile in this case is a statutory period of time; if a man has five years domicile he cannot be deported. However, he was detained for 25 days in order to ascertain this. Now, it is odd, too, that there were certain charges laid under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but those charges were not founded so the man was not convicted. The other charges were withdrawn.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I think the Minister must answer as to why this was done. I am not trying to judge the man's character when I pose these questions. However, this man is a fairly recent arrival in this country, and has been here for five years. Under what right do we take him off the street, out of his job and incarcerate him for 25 days to establish that he has been in the country five years and therefore could not be the subject of deportation proceedings? I think we require a full explanation. The explanation so far is quite unacceptable under the circumstances. We do not think this should happen, because under the Criminal Code every man who is arrested has to appear in court and his case dealt with within a fixed period. A man cannot be detained indefinitely. When this does happen, certainly a rebuke is administered to the officials responsible. This is a travesty of justice when a man is detained improperly, whether under the Criminal Code or under the Immigration Act. It is still a violation of his rights and I must protest against this type of action. Certainly, the Minister must come forward with a better explanation than has appeared so far in this particular case.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Edmonton West, but for some minutes, we have not had a quorum in the House.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I shall ask the Clerk to count the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I believe that, under these circumstances, House counting is not proper. So far as I am concerned, whether we have 15 or whatever, we carry on with the business. I do not care, but I suppose this is an opportunity to say certain people are present.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I ask the Clerk to count the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hope this will not intrude on my time.
Interim Supply


Herman Maxwell Batten: There are 22 Members present, the House is in order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have finished with that matter.
The other day the hon. Member for Ontario asked the Minister of National Revenue about certain administrative rulings that were being followed concerning certain products of the ice cream industry which hitherto had been free of federal sales tax. We have protests, naturally, from the Dairy Council of Canada and inquiries as to why this has happened. The other day the Minister did not give an answer, and I invite him to give us an answer now. This administrative ruling was made in 1950, and if it was made at that time certainly there was a justification for the ruling. However, 15 years later, we find a change. I know this has been done in the past in connection with various taxation matters, but there must be justification for the change. It is not merely a case of a quest for revenue. Therefore, I invite the Minister of National Revenue or his representative to tell us precisely why this is being done. Certainly it is not a case of idle speculation, because the Dairy Council has put out a number of inquiries in regard to it; so obviously it must be well founded.
This afternoon I asked the Minister of Finance a question as to whether or not there had been any protests, official or otherwise, from the United States Government with regard to the bank controls that were being imposed on the Mercantile Bank of Canada as a result of its ownership by the First National City Bank of New York. I do not know why this action was taken. We will be discussing the subject again in committee when the Bank Act is before the committee. I must confess I cannot understand why there should be an element of retroactivity. After all, the Mercantile Bank of Canada was never owned by Canadians. When it was incorporated in 1952, it was definitely all Dutch capital. Control by the First National City Bank of New York came into the picture when it first of all acquired a 50 per cent interest in this foreign owned bank. Subsequently it acquired the remaining 50 per cent. Now, for some reason a bank which has been operating in Canada for 13 years is told, you cannot expand because of this nationalism the Minister is trying to impose upon our banks.
I have before me an article written by that great pundit of Liberalism, Bruce Hutchison, who writes periodically from great heights in the Christian Science Monitor.

June 28, 1965
Interim Supply


Erik Nielsen: The editor of the Minister of Transport.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Whatever he may be, here is the article. It is within this article that I find a suggestion which I have found elsewhere as well, that our Canadian banks or agencies in the United States may come in for retaliatory action. I made this suggestion on the second reading of Bill No. C-102. Certainly, we would resent anything that would curb their activities and cause them some retrenchment. On the other hand, we have here a proposal-you may check me, Mr. Chairman, if you think I am slightly out of order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was just going to say that I would be glad to deal with this at the proper time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am dealing with the reply to the question this afternoon. I am sure the Minister has seen this type of comment. He may not have received official information from the United States Government, but I feel I must make this comment because the question is there. The Minister says he is going to deal with it at the appropriate time, perhaps in committee in October, November or perhaps in December when the committee has reported the legislation back to the House.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
However, this is not really the main burden of what I want to say tonight. This afternoon the hon. Member for Yukon raised the case of William Grant, a former Yukon Indian Agent at Whitehorse. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated he had asked for a transcript of the judgment of Mr. Justice Parker. I trust he will read it because he will then see what I consider to be, not a prosecution but a persecution of a man whose record, according to the testimony of the trial and the editorials written since the verdict was handed down, was exemplary. This man was charged under six different counts with contraventions of the Financial Administration Act by making a false return to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
William Grant was suspended on May 15, 1963 after he had been transferred from the Yukon, according to what had been the undertaking given to him when he initially went there. He was a man of rather frail health who went up there in 1960. On account of his devotion to duty he decided against his own wishes and those of his wife to take on the job in the Yukon, but only for a limited time because his health would not stand it.
He was transferred south to Vernon in late 1962 or early 1963. Then his administration came under investigation and he was suspended in May 1963. But, Mr. Chairman, charges were not laid against him until November 5, 1964, after approval by the Minister of Justice. The charges were not laid by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration nor at his instance, because I think all will agree it is the decision of the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice alone whether charges will be proceeded with or not.
This man went through his trial last week, and on Thursday Mr. Justice John Parker, even though over $70,000 was involved, fined him $10 on each charge, with one day in jail in the alternative. For the edification of hon. Members I will put on the record some of the things which were said by Mr. Justice Parker, and I hope that these words will sear the soul and brain of those people who were responsible for the charges in this case.
Mr. Justice Parker said:
It would be quite inappropriate to send Mr. Grant to jail. Suspended sentence doesn't really apply. It would be an insult to this man to say, "You will go free if you stay out of trouble'*... ridiculous. Mr. Grant is an exceptional man.
When it comes to a penalty, Grant's career was shattered.
In parenthesis I may say he has been operating a small grocery store and his wife is a matron of nursing in a neighbouring hospital in B.C.
He took certain risks, has said he was glad he did what he admits doing. He may still be glad, but he has suffered for it. There is no deterrent required ... how many public servants are going to take the risks Grant took to satisfy their conscience?
Mr. Grant could have sat and watched the people in his agency die...could have said I have only so much money to spend, this has to be, I've done what I can. He did not do this. He risked his career to do what he as a conscientious person on the spot thought he could do without bringing the Government down on him. It is largely a matter of luck whether or not a government official can achieve these things. My final comment on the morality of this case.. .1 like to think that had I been in Grant's position I would have had the courage to do as he did.
What was the offence? For housing some 2,500 people in the Yukon the department's allocation was $40,000, $16 per head on the average, and with respect to the conditions existing there one has only to read the evidence of the testimonials on behalf of Mr. Grant and the articles which appeared in the Western papers dealing with condi-

June 28, 1965

tions among the native population in the Yukon.
What did Grant do? As appeared in the evidence, like many another agent he had an almost open end cash relief account. He drew a cheque on it in favour of someone in the agency, as the need arose, and when the cheque was cashed the money was used to pay the accounts due. Some 70 houses were built and power lines installed. From the evidence it is clear that not one penny of this $70,000 found its way into Grant's pocket. As a matter of fact the evidence showed he paid money of his own in order to assist the native population.
Yet because of ambition, because of somebody's political decision, this man and an associate were brought before the courts. I shall read further from Justice Parker's judgment:
I doubt whether Indian Affairs ever got better value for expenditure than in those Mr. Grant made. Even the subsidizing of an Indian candidate for Sourdough Rendezvous Queen was a morale booster for the native people. Grant knew he could have got no authority to do what he felt was desirable there. He cleared the right of way, got poles for electrical power to Upper Liard. I believe him when he says he pointed this out to Commissioner Boys.
There is a real possibility of misunderstanding here. Commissioner Boys may have interpreted Mr. Grant's explanation as being a way of getting work out of Indians on relief payments.
Here is another interesting comment from the judgment:
It is interesting to note the Government of Canada has made no effort to recover any of the funds expended in this unauthorized way...the reason is perfectly clear. The Government is saying, in effect, "You had absolutely no right to do the things you did, but we quite agree with what you've done.
I read further from the judgment:
He had access to the parliamentary vote for Indian housing in the Yukon and Northern B.C.. . . a total of only about $40,000 per year. The cost of housing units was five or six thousand each.
So he knew he could do something to assist them to get better housing, though official funds were limited, there was no particular limit on the amount for relief funds at his disposal in Vote 519, designated for food, clothing, fuel and other relief objects.
I am satisfied Mr. Grant was aware of the practice in other agencies where cheques written on Vote 519 were used for other purposes as the Superintendent thought best. The number of needs here was higher than encountered elsewhere. So what he did was to write relief cheques payable to someone in the agency, have them endorsed and use the funds for housing and certain other purposes.
The pressures of conscience must have been very great...to anyone in the Yukon this makes very good sense...they would say, "Well, as a
Interim Supply
taxpayer, I'm in favour of this." However, it was in absolute and direct violation of his instruction. He risked his career as a civil servant to do what his conscience told him should be done.
I now wish to quote from an editorial in the Edmonton Journal of Friday June 25:
Bureaucracy has seldom appeared more foolish or the law been made into a greater ass than in the outrageous prosecution of Mr. William Grant, the former Yukon Indian Agent.
In a trial before Mr. Justice Parker at Whitehorse Thursday, Mr. Grant was convicted of making false returns to the federal Indian Affairs Branch. . .
Mr. Justice Parker is to be highly commended on the sensible view he took of the case and for mitigating, so far as possible, the effects of the folly of the Indian Affairs Branch in prosecuting Mr. Grant.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I would interpolate here that I do not think it is the folly of the Indian Affairs Branch. The prosecution was the direct decision of the Minister of Justice, and in passing I note that Mr. Grant has not been drawing any salary since May 15, 1963, and his associate has not been drawing any salary since September 1963. Yet we heard the Minister of Justice say the other day that a certain justice in Quebec who has been convicted of perjury who has appealed this conviction is continuing to draw his salary.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is this a case of there being one law for those high in office and another for those who are not so high? We are all equal, but I suppose some people are more equal than others, if I may poorly paraphrase George Orwell.


An hon. Member:: What did the hon.
Member for Lapointe say?


Gilles Grégoire: It is because he gave his place to the Minister of Justice, to run in his constituency.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, the hon. Member will make his own contribution. Those are his words.
This matter was suspended. Perhaps there was to be a cover-up. But why wait until November 5, 1964, to lay charges-18 months later? This is what we cannot understand.


Mr. Benson:: I could tell you why.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of National Revenue should listen to what this editorial has to say.
The judge said: 'T should like to think that had I been in Grant's position I would have had the courage to do as he did." But he added that Mr. Grant's actions had "shattered his career."

June 28. 1965
Interim Supply
Why should his career be shattered? The Federal Government must make amends to a good and faithful servant-and very handsomely. Every Canadian with a sense of justice and fair play will demand nothing less.
Now I turn to an editorial in the Whitehorse Star of June 24, 1965:
When Mr. Justice John Parker delivered his masterful summation in Territorial Court Wednesday afternoon, only a handful of spectators was present. None of them remained unmoved by the tribute paid to Bill Grant, a little guy who broke the rules to do what he felt had to be done. There is general rejoicing throughout the Yukon today that justice was done in that courtroom.
Now that the long strain is over, and Bill Grant relaxes for the first time in two years (it has been that long since he was suspended by Indian Affairs) there are a few afterthoughts for the record.
No one can assess what it cost Grant and Armishaw to face trial on charges which were brought by some unknown person to the Crown... how can anguish and heartbreak be weighed? How can a child's sorrow and torment at the hands of others be measured? How is a value placed on a beloved mother who suffers a stroke because of a court case?
There is one economic yardstick which can be measured however.. .in dollars and cents, Bill Grant has lost at least $20,000 because of his actions on behalf of the Indians in the Yukon. He has lost two years' salary as Superintendent of Indian Agency, plus transportation and other incidental expenses to go back and forth to Whitehorse from his home in Vanderhoof, B.C. for arrainging, for preliminary hearing, for trial. Legal counsel is another expense item.
Bill Grant and Joe Armishaw were brought back under police escort, housed in the R.C.M.P. detachment jail like common criminals. They have been unable to find employment for the past two years with serious charges hanging over their heads.
As Judge Parker commented, no deterrent is required. .. how many civil servants would be willing to risk their careers as Grant did?
Is there no compensation aside from moral justification?
I have before me testimonials from a number of citizens of Whitehorse as to the manner in which this man worked for the Indians. They speak eloquently of his position in Whitehorse. I do not know Grant. I have had no contact with him. But the mere appearance of these things in black and white cries out for justice. We all know that in every department certain things are done-the rules are bent slightly; a way is found to do justice, to do the right thing. Parliament provides certain sums of money for use in the Indian Affairs Branch. Many a superintendent of Indian Affairs believes he should be developing a community of people who will not simply be waiting for cash handouts. Here, this money was used for housing. One only has to read the reports of the medical officer to visualize the state of housing for the native

people in Whitehorse-how unsanitary it was. But this was taken care of in part at least. And what was this man's recompense? A bureaucratic decision that he should be prosecuted. I say that this decision by the Department of Justice was a shabby decision, a shocking decision.
Now comes the question: What will happen to William Grant? Is he to bear the stigma of dismissal from Her Majesty's service because he was convicted on six charges under the Financial Administration Act, after he had put in 14 years of exemplary service? His service was valued service-


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Would he tell us who it was who provided the niggardly sums for housing to meet this situation?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the history all through. The situation is no better today than it was before. I am glad the hon. Member for York-Scarborough raised this point. It shows that all he can think of in this matter is partisan, political considerations. Nothing more is embodied in his question.


An hon. Member:: As always.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not excusing the
previous administration. I am saying that this situation is a blot on the conscience of us all. I am not excusing myself for only $40,000 being provided for the housing in that area. It was wrong. Let us admit it was wrong. But what I am talking about now is the man who tried to get away from that position, Parliament having voted other funds. No one has said we must recover the money. The cash relief provision could have been cut by 60 per cent and the money applied to housing. It was there. One hundred thousand dollars could have been available.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. Member that his time has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that there were some interruptions, may I have a few more minutes? I am reaching my peroration.
I feel we should have a full explanation why this man was prosecuted. Why was there this persistence in the prosecution? After all, the evidence is that many other agents had done similar things in the past-they, too, out of humanity. I am not suggesting that the end always justifies the means. But money has been provided and the department obviously knew what was happening. How could they possibly have been unaware, after
June 28, 1965

two or three years, that something was going on in this area?
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Also, the houses were going up; there were field inspections. This would be apparent. But somehow or other after Grant left the Yukon there was a complaint; and by whom? It would be interesting to know who made the complaint, and why. I wish to thank the Committee for the extended time, Mr. Chairman. There may be some further remarks I may wish to make as the debate develops.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might reply briefly to one of the points raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I refer to the De Luca case. I think I might suggest, having regard to the wording of the two answers to which my hon. friend referred, that it might be suspected that there was good reason for this. If a man has been tried in the courts and acquitted, one does not like to go into too much detail in answering a question.
I might, for the information of the hon. Member and others interested, state that in this particular case De Luca, within five years of his landing in Canada and before he had acquired domicile, was convicted of assaulting his wife and sentenced to a short term in jail; I believe it was some three days. He might have been deported at that time, technically, because he had committed a crime which warranted action under the Immigration Act; he had been convicted of an indictable offence before he had acquired domicile in this country.
Before he had acquired domicile, while he was in Italy on a visit, leaving his wife behind him with the young children referred to, the Immigration Department received information of a very disturbing nature from the wife. That information was referred to the police authorities promptly and an investigation was made. This was within a matter of days before the five years would have elapsed permitting this man to gain the status of a domiciled Canadian. He was picked up on an immigration warrant and charges were laid against him in the courts; serious charges were laid in the Family Court. The immigration authorities did not release him on bail because of the serious nature of the charges, and the Judge of the Family Court also refused bail in that particular case.
Before the immigration authorities had an opportunity to proceed with the hearing, which would have justified his deportation
Interim Supply
because he had been convicted, a prerogative writ was issued. Because of the prerogative writ they could not proceed with the immigration hearing, and he acquired the five years domicile while the prerogative writ was pending in the courts. I think he had been picked up during the third week of March and by early April he had acquired the five years domicile and the Immigration Department could take no further action.
But, Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend had wanted to see the file and the nature of the information, he had only to come to my office and he would have seen it. If he had done this I am quite sure he would not have been as critical of the Department as he has been today. The file is there and he can see it any time he wants to do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, why would the Minister tell me it takes 25 days to determine the fact that a man has acquired domicile? It is a simple case of mathematics. Whilst the Minister is considering his answer to that question perhaps he would address his mind to this point. Is it the practice of the Department to dredge out from maybe two years back a minor assault charge? I think one would have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to justify deportation on that count and suggest that they are sufficient grounds.
This is the point that worries me. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I hold no brief for De Luca, but I am concerned with the time that was taken before he was released. If the release of April 12 was under the Family Court proceedings, then the Minister need only tell us that. I am concerned with how long the immigration authorities had him under detention.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: He was released on April 12, Mr. Chairman. He was picked up on March 17. There were three charges laid under the Family Court Act, but in the meantime a prerogative writ was issued. My hon. friend knows that the hearing of a prerogative writ is within the jurisdiction of the court and not the Immigration Department, and we cannot proceed with an immigration hearing unless the ruling of the court permits us so to do. But before that prerogative writ issue had been disposed of he had acquired five years domicile in this country and we could take no further action. I wish my hon. friend would just take the time to come into my office and see the material that prompted the action in this case.

June 28, 1965
Interim Supply


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I would like to raise in this interim supply debate. I regret having to raise the first one but I do so because the matter has been raised time after time by other Members as well as myself and no action has been taken. So far as I am concerned, I am going to get up on every available opportunity until an injustice is corrected. The injustice is that the federal Government, quite legally but actually, is stealing some $1,500 a year from certain skilled tradesmen in their employ. I have never been able to understand why there is one policy in one department and an entirely different policy in another.
In the case of a skilled tradesman such as an electrician employed by the Department of Public Works in this building, he receives what is known as the prevailing rate. An electrician employed by the Department of Public Works has to have the same knowledge and does the same work as the electrician who works for a private contractor outside the public service. This is an accepted principle, and has been for years and years, in the Department of Public Works. But when we come to an electrician employed by the Department of National Defence in the dockyard at Esquimau, then the prevailing rate structure does not apply.
I have raised this matter before and, as I say, I am raising it now and am going to keep on raising it until the situation is corrected. I will admit that I have a particular interest in this question because by trade I am an electrician myself and I know what these men are up against. There is only one difference between the electricians in the dockyard and myself, and that is that although I am trained to give light the same as they are, I also try to give light in a different way in this House of Commons.
An electrician in the dockyard at Esquimau never goes on board ship-that is, the inside wireman-and therefore never does any work on board ship. Therefore he is not a marine electrician. Yet the Government insists on classifying the electricians in the dockyard at Esquimau who never go on board ship, who have to do all the work that any other electrician has to do and have to have all the qualifications, as marine electricians and not as inside wiremen. This is the way they are classified by the department. A marine electrician receives $3.05 an hour; that is the prevailing rate. But an inside wireman in Victoria receives $3.85 an hour as the prevailing rate.

[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Year after year this department refuses to recognize that they are inside wiremen and they are not marine electricians, and because of this outright discrimination they are stealing $1,500 a year from the electricians employed by the Department of National Defence in the dockyard at Esquimau. These inside wiremen not only do maintenance work but they have to do construction work. They have to handle pumps and other electric motors with ratings as high as 2,300 volts which marine electricians are not qualified or allowed to handle. Yet we have a continuation of this situation.
The situation is even worse for the linemen working in the dockyard. These linemen handle hot, as it is called. They handle up to 60,000 volts. They handle hot anything, from 110 volts, 220-240 volts, 2,300-2,400 right up to 60,000 volts. The B.C. hydro men outside the camps are paid $3.42 an hour. The linemen inside the fence working for the Government are paid $2.95 an hour, instead of $3.42. I say this is absolutely unfair and is against what has always been the policy in most Government departments, namely that skilled workmen, be they electricians, carpenters, painters, plumbers or steamfit-ters are paid the prevailing rate; and the prevailing rate is the union rate. In Victoria the Department of National Defence furthers this injustice by stealing from qualified workmen $1,500 a year by way of salary. I hope that this will be the last time that I, the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and others have to draw this discrimination to the attention of the Government. Before the House meets following the recess, which I understand is going to come about, I hope that corrective action will be taken in the payment of union wages to federal employees who are entitled to them, and that some consideration will be given to making this payment retroactive for at least a reasonable period of time.
There is one other matter I want to raise on interim supply, which provides the only occasion on which I can raise it. The City of Vancouver is not only a major port of Canada, but it is one of the major exporting ports of the world. There is a labour dispute taking place in the City of Vancouver. One of the elevators has been closed for a period of time. The union workers in Vancouver have, however, played fair with the farmers of this country and with the port of Vancouver and the Government in that, out-
June 28, 1965

side of this one elevator, all other elevators have been kept in operation and these men are prepared to move the wheat from the elevators to the ships just as fast as the ships come into port and the wheat becomes available.
However, Mr. Chairman, what is happening is this. The other elevator companies are by their actions blacklisting the port of Vancouver. They are by their actions being unfair to the farmers and laying the foundation for antagonism of the unions so that the strike will spread. Only yesterday I believe the Minister of Labour received a telegram from the United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America. This is the union concerned in the present dispute in Vancouver. I think that this matter is of such importance that the only way that we can assure a sense of decency on the part of these firms to their employees, the farmers of Canada and the Government is to place on record the complaint which has been officially brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour. Therefore having received a copy from the employees of the union concerned I should like to read this telegram. It reads as follows:
Having promised the government to try and keep the export grain flowing through port of Vancouver by not spreading the strike to other elevators, while current industrial commission attempting settlement, unless provoked into doing so, the union urgently requests you to cause an investigation as to:	(a) why are so many ships lying in the stream
during the past six weeks, waiting to receive grain cargoes;
(b)	why the operating elevators do not and have not had the proper grades, e.g. Durum wheat, etc. on hand in sufficient quantity and why they have large vacant storage space at present;
(c)	why railroad cars from the prairie were reduced to a trickle on one or more occasions during last two months;
(d)	why many grain berths and loading spout facilities at operating elevators have been vacant and out of use during the past several weeks;
(e)	why one large elevator is cutting off receiving cars from three to five days so it can conduct a weighover, i.e. a Government inspection of grain on hand, when ships are waiting for wheat and prairie farmers are waiting to ship. Surely an extension could have been given this elevator by the board to protect its licence, if this is the problem;
(f)	why in light of above, farmers at east-west shipping point in Saskatchewan have not been able to have their storage grain shipped so as to clean out their bins for new crop;
(g)	why board developed new camouflage twist of placing on outside of cars cards designating other elevators as consignee yet when opened such cars have Alberta Wheat Pool grain tags inside.
This is the elevator that is being struck, Sir.
Interim Supply
This causes a struck company's grain to go into an unstruck elevator. It is a provocative move to possibly expand strike. Although unsavoury the union is urging its members to handle this wheat in order not to fall victim of companies provocations to expand strike, at least during incumbency of Commission.
Copy of this wire sent to house leaders-
Etcetera. That telegram is signed by Mr. E. C. Sims on behalf of the grain workers union.
I do not apologize, Mr. Chairman, for taking up the time of this Committee in reading the telegram or raising this issue on interim supply. The farmers want to ship the wheat they have in stock, so as to clean their bins and be prepared for the new crop. The port of Vancouver wants to ship the grain. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is proud of the contracts he has been able to sign in connection with the export of Canadian wheat. The City of Vancouver wants the port kept open. The employees want to reach an amicable understanding with their employers. They do not want to close the port. They have shut down one elevator only as a demonstration of their demands and have left the others in operation. Yet the evidence from the union in Vancouver that the elevator companies are being provocative and are trying to provoke by their action the unions into expanding the strike, a strike which the Vancouver workers do not want, is conclusive. They are very definitely trying to provoke an expansion of the strike by placing labels on the outside of railway freight cars designating them for elevators which have not been struck. However, when the union men open the doors of those freight cars they find that they were originally intended for the Alberta wheat pool elevators which have been struck.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I know that all Members of this House want to see wheat flowing through the port of Vancouver, and the way to ensure this is to refuse to be part or parcel of mislabelling of freight cars, and to make sure that every bit of storage in elevators in Vancouver which have not been struck is fully utilized.
According to the telegram to which I referred there were not less than six ships in mid-stream Vancouver harbour waiting to be loaded with wheat, which apparently the other elevators were not prepared to supply because of their attempt to create the impression that elevator employees and unions are the ones who are responsible for the expansion of any tie-up in the City of Vancouver.
2968

June 28, 1965
Interim Supply
I think 1 have said enough to emphasize not only the importance of this matter but to draw this situation to the attention of the Minister of Labour. I have done so with the hope that he will not receive this telegram without doing something about it. He has very capable employees in Vancouver and I feel that he should give them explicit instructions to see that elevators which have not been struck are operating at full capacity to the benefit of the workers, the City of Vancouver, the farmers and this country as a whole. I want to reiterate my hope that the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and myself will not have to get up again to ask for decency and fair play for the employees in the dockyards at Esquimalt in order that they may obtain their rights to receive prevailing rates, because they are qualified and they have to do the work.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up a few minutes to raise a question of interest to all C.N.R. station masters, from Vancouver to Newfoundland.
Some time ago, I received representations from C.N.R. station masters and got in touch immediately with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I should like to read a few paragraphs from my letter, so that all the members, and more particularly the government members, might know the injustice which is being done by C.N.R. officials to station masters who have worked for that company for 15, 20 and even 30 years. Now, this is what I wrote to the Minister of Transport on April 14, 1965:
Honourable Sir:
I am informed that the Canadian National Railways intend to take away from station agents the express commissions on the line from Vancouver to Newfoundland. It seems that this amount paid in addition to the station masters' salaries amounted to over one million dollars. As a compensation, the C.N.R. has offered approximately $300,000 to be distributed in lieu of commissions.
And there I mentioned to the Minister of Transport that a few station agents had asked me to intervene on their behalf to correct, if possible, the new policy which C.N.R. officials intended to adopt.
In addition, I pointed out in my letter that those persons told me that this compensation would represent approximately one fourth of the amount they received previously as commissions. This means that a station master who received $500 in commissions to do this work would only receive about $125 under this new policy.

On April 15, the minister acknowledged receipt of my letter and on June 10, he replied that he had received from the C.N.R. a report on my remarks about the proposed removal of the commissions. The authorities of the company also advised the Minister that the matter had been discussed with the Order of Railway Telegraphers for several years and that negotiations were under way with that organization.
The minister also suggested that those concerned be asked to submit the usual representations to their unions.
I want to point out this evening that station masters employed by the C.N.R. for many years got from $100 to $5,000 in commissions for their work. Those commissions cost a little over $1 million every year to the C.N.R. and now the company offers its station masters a compensation of $375,000, or approximately 25 per cent of the amount paid previously. In short, instead of getting a salary increase, as in every other segment of society, and in every other trade or profession, those C.N.R. employees must accept a rather substantial reduction.
I even met a station master who told me that this new policy would cost him over a thousand dollars a year in salary.
The company told the station masters to make their representations to their union, but the employees told us that the latter had informed them that they had to accept the company's offer because it seemed final.
At a meeting last May 13, the company offered station masters the sum of $250,000. According to a press release company officials stated:

-Company is desirous of withdrawing Express Commissions either through negotiations with us or by other means.

Mr. Chairman, that means that the station masters concerned had no other choice than to accept the company's offer, in order to obtain the largest amount possible, because the company would take other steps to withdraw express commissions.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
After drawn-out negotiations, the union concerned was forced to accept an amount of $375,000 which was distributed as follows: 6 per cent in the Atlantic provinces, 25 per cent in the St. Lawrence region, 24 per cent in the Great Lakes area, 24 per cent in the Prairies and 11 per cent among the station agents of the Mountain region. The station
June 28. 1965

agents will be forced to accept this amount and will have no other recourse. As a consequence, agents in my region as in others, will see their salaries reduced by $500, $800, $1,200 or $1,500 a year.
At present station agents are wondering if the C.P.R. has acted the same way. They would also like to know if this crown company, which receives federal grants, can actually reduce their earnings by eliminating the payment of commissions, and whether, in the next few months, the company will announce a salary revision so that they may receive as much money as they did prior to this agreement, to provide for their family's needs.
I take this opportunity to thank the minister, first for having answered my letter, and second, for having asked the C.N.R. for a report. I also wish to ask the minister to give this matter further study and to see if there has not been any discrimination against those C.N.R. station agents. It should also be determined whether those agents who, as I said earlier, received up to $4,000 in commissions but will henceforth be receiving only $1,000 to $1,500, will have their loss offset by an increase in salary of $2,000 to $2,500 a year.
I am sure that if the minister takes the trouble to study the question-and I know that he will do so-he will find that the people concerned have good grounds to fear the worst. Indeed, if members of all professions are getting salary raises at this time, it is inconceivable that this group of citizens, in all Canadian provinces, should suffer a salary decrease.
The second point I wish to make on interim supply arises from a certain statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). We know that, at the present time, one must be very cautious in Canada as to the words one uses and the action one takes to achieve greater unity and understanding between western and eastern farmers. Sometimes, certain statements shock us and rightly so.
As far as I am concerned, as a citizen of eastern Canada and as a practising farmer, I do not want to criticize in any way western farmers or the present or the past governments for passing legislation in favour of farmers in the western provinces. What I want is that, instead of destroying the action taken in favour of western farmers by the governments, farmers from eastern Canada should find a way to profit by the advantages offered by the federal government. Too often in the past, there seemed to be attempts 22620-1891
Interim Supply
to rouse one group against the other, and in fact, we, in eastern Canada, have noticed, that such was, in a way, the policy of those who govern the affairs of this country.
Thus, during the last electoral campaigns, candidates in eastern cities, such as Toronto and Montreal, said that the Conservative party, when in office, favoured western Canada much too much. A feeling of distrust was created here against the Conservative party and western farmers who, it was said, were always asking the federal government for money under the crop insurance act and other legislation. It was even claimed that those statutes protected only western farmers. In my opinion, that campaign was disastrous for national unity and for eastern farmers.
I should like to make this appeal: Let us put an end to those suggestions and remarks which tend to divide rather than unite.
If every time a group, either from the east or the west, wants some legislation to be passed, another group objects thereto on the grounds that the government is doing too much for one part of the population, we are really going to divide Canada.
I should like to refer to what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) said last December-I was then recuperating from a car accident-before the Canadian federation of farmers at the Empress Hotel in British Columbia. I have read his remarks again and again, but it is the first time that I have the opportunity to quote them in the house for the information of all hon. Members and also for the edification of eastern farmers, so that they know exactly that the good old policy of the Liberal party of going into one part of the country to arouse its people against those of another area still prevails.
I will simply read without any comment what the Minister of Agriculture said. I am sure that everybody will be able to analyse his words and their purport.
I quote in English the minister's statement:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Achievements such as these have been due in large part to the capacity and ability of your farm people and leaders.
They have been due also, I would think, to the fact that there is still a pioneering spirit here, a willingness to try new approaches and break new ground.

This happened in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact I sometimes wish we could transport some of this vigorous pioneering spirit,

June 28, 1965
Interim Supply
this eager open-mindedness and willingness to try new ideas which is so typical of the whole west -including the west I come from-to other parts of our country.
I know I'm prejudiced, but I think it would tone up some of our eastern provinces to have a little more of this healthy western pioneering spirit down there.

Mr. Chairman, I know that westerners are broadminded and willing to accept new ideas, new ways of dealing with problems, but it does not follow, as the Minister of Agriculture seemed to insinuate, that farmers of eastern Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, are narrowminded and unwilling to consider new ideas. If the minister created that impression in western Canada about the Ontario, Quebec and Maritime farmers, I would invite my hon. friends from the western provinces and British Columbia to come to the east, to Ontario, to my own province of Quebec, or to the Maritimes where they will meet farmers who are not narrowminded but willing to accept new ideas to improve their lot and help their profession.
However, none of those new ideas should be along the lines once suggested by the Minister of Agriculture, namely that the Quebec farmer could live with the proceeds from six cows and two sows and that the Quebec members who spoke in the house of a recession in agriculture were talking through their hats. That is no way of introducing new ideas or of dealing with a segment of the population which wants to live on Canadian soil and participate in the achievements of our national economy.
Frequently, organizations or people draw our attention to statements made by the Minister of Agriculture. At first we hoped that the minister would check his bursts of temper, stop making wanton statements or think twice before making great statements.
Some time ago Ontario farmers organized by the Ontario farmers' union marched on the federal capital. They came to ask the federal government to consider their problems and find a solution so that farmers could get a decent income, which is only right. In fact, if, according to statistics, the average income of the whole family is $7,200 this year, the average income of the eastern farmers family is much lower than that. If the government wants farmer income to increase proportionately, it should cease to make improper remarks against farm organizations and farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture had this to say about this march:

The brief presented by the marchers contained "serious factual errors in statistics and glaring contradictions in its own policy statements." No government can be impressed by this sort of presentation, he added.

And the minister continued further on:

Before agitating for action, surely it should know exactly what action it is agitating for. It seems to me that any other approach is purely irresponsible. And I don't just think Canada can afford this kind of irresponsibility inside or outside our politics.

This means, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture was simply saying to these people that their brief concerning a certain policy was nonsense, irresponsible, and that the figures quoted were wrong; that these men who had taken the trouble to study data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Agriculture, these men who had come here to the federal capital to submit a true picture of farming in Ontario, were all wrong. They came here to ask that a specific policy be adopted, and they were told once more, and this to the Chamber of Commerce of Alberta, they had not considered the matter, in short, that they did not know what they were talking about. I suggest that such an answer tends to divide rather than unite the country or the classes of society, or the eastern and western farmers.
If the Minister of Agriculture has something to say to Ontario farmers, instead of doing so before the Chamber of Commerce of Alberta, he should have the courage to tell them face to face, or else in the course of a meeting in his office. If the Minister of Agriculture has something to say against the eastern farmers, let him not go to the Empress hotel, in British Columbia, and tell western farmers what is going on in eastern Canada; instead he should at least have the decency to reply to farmers of eastern Canada, to discuss with them the problems the East has to face and not go and discredit these people before their fellow citizens, counterparts or friends in western Canada. As far as we are concerned, we want others to succeed in their own region, but we also wish to succeed at home.
I shall conclude my remarks on these two points which I think, are significant; first, I hope the Minister of Transport will give

June 28, 1965

immediate attention to the station agents of the Canadian National Railways in my province and in the eastern provinces; second, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will once and for all put an end to those unpleasant remarks about eastern farmers when he speaks to western farmers.
For my part and as far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we shall never agree to criticize or campaign against the present government if it helps western farmers, but I want the same attitude to be adopted by the government when its ministers come and make political speeches in my province and in all eastern Canada.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder if it would be agreeable, in order to get some legislation forward to the other place, if the committee were to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later this day, or tomorrow? Then we could go on to deal with certain items of legislation-the veterans legislation, the Judges Act and possibly, though this is not yet certain, the resolution preceding the measure concerning incentives for designated areas.


Michael Starr: Agreed.
Progress reported.



Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-127, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to refer this amendment to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: While I would have no objection to such a course, I think it would be of value if these bills were disposed of by the House. I will undertake to ensure that when the standing committee meets later this year these matters will be before them, along with others, and the veterans organizations will have ample opportunity to make any representations they may care to make.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 1
wish to say that the Members of this party support the principle and purpose of this bill,
War Veterans Allowance Act which contains amendments which have been urged by various veterans organizations during the past two years to my knowledge. We might call this a tidying-up bill with respect to definitions and certain details which have been overlooked to date.
I know that hon. Members wish to get on with the legislation and I suggest we should pass through the second reading stage and ask any question we may wish to raise on the clauses, when we are in Committee of the Whole.


George Louis Chatterton: Perhaps I might make a few observations-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I would remind the hon. Member that we are not yet in Committee and that he has already taken part in the debate. If there is unanimous agreement that the hon. Member may take part in the debate again, it could be done. Otherwise, his contribution should be made in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
On clause 1-"Child".
George Louis Chatterton: I wish to make a few remarks on clause 1 with regard to the proposed amendments to this Act. Generally speaking we are in favour of the proposals. We think they are good, though they do not in all respects conform to the recommendations of the veterans organizations. I admit these organizations have approved the schedule of payments and income limits.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The first point at which I suggest the present amendments are amiss is the provision for maximum income allowable to a married couple. The maximum income allowed under the terms of the present bill has been increased to $220, and the allowance has been increased to $161 a month. I wish to take up the case of the married veteran who has dependants-veterans who were granted war veterans allowance under section 3(l)(c). That is the provision which allows a veteran to obtain war veterans allowance because of unemployability. 1 have on my records an example which I referred to the Minister, and under the existing legislation the Minister of course had no alternative but to deny the application. This was a young veteran of 35 years of age who under section 3(l)(c) of the War Veterans Allowance Act was declared to be unemployable because of a serious heart condition. He had five children. Under the
June 28, 1965

War Veterans Allowance Act existing legislation and under the proposed legislation the maximum that can be granted to him out of the assistance fund is the maximum income allowable under the War Veterans Allowance Act, which is now $221 a month.
I admit, of course, and recognize that any allowance this couple would receive under the Family Allowance Act and under provincial social legislation is not considered as income-that is, any other such income- for the purpose of the ceiling of the War Veterans Allowance Act. But the fact of the matter is that in certain provinces, and certainly in British Columbia, the ceiling established by the War Veterans Allowance Act is greater than the ceiling allowed by the provincial government for social assistance. The result is that we get a married couple, without any children, receiving $221 a month. We also have another married couple where the husband is also in receipt of war vet-terans allowance, with five children, who are allowed exactly the same amount and the same ceiling. What I am suggesting is that the Minister consider merely raising the ceiling of allowable income to those war veterans allowance recipients who have dependant children. It will not cost any more money under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am suggesting that the Minister merely raise the ceiling by say $25 per month for each dependant child. Then under the assistance fund they could receive an additional allowance, and if they do not receive the additional allowance because the board will not grant it to them, at least the wife could go out and work. The husband himself is unemployable, he has been declared so by medical certificate. The wife could go out and earn more money to support the five children, or however many there may be.
I suggest to the Minister that the situation is so obviously inequitable that it warrants his serious consideration. I have suggested that the maximum allowable income be increased by say $25 a month for each dependant child. I would appeal to the Minister to do this. I know he is interested in this matter and I ask that he consider this proposal very seriously under the present bill.
We are anxious to get this legislation through. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, there is not the same anxiety to get the war veterans allowance amendments through tonight or tomorrow because the increases are already in effect. But there are other ways in which

this legislation could be improved. I could go on for some time describing some of the other inequities that exist under the War Veterans Allowance Act and which are not remedied by the proposed amendments. I would suggest to the Minister that perhaps this bill might be referred to the standing committee; but if it is not, let me mention another problem that has been brought to my attention on many, many occasions.
I realize this is somewhat of a departure from the original principle of war veterans allowance. One of the greatest difficulties I have seen with recipients of war veterans allowance concerns medical expenses incurred by the wife. I would suggest to the Minister that he seriously consider that the wife and also, of course, dependant children of a recipient be taken care of as far as treatment is concerned. Without going into any other anomalies that I have noticed, may I suggest to the Minister that if it cannot be done now, in the future the war veterans allowance be tied to an index, I would not say to the cost of living index but to the average standard of wages. It seems that veterans organizations are reasonably satisfied with the rate set under the proposed amendment and as established by the House last September. If this is a reasonable standard, let us tie it to the increase in wages of the people of the country. I think this would be very beneficial in the future, provided you use the right index, not the index used in the Canada Pension Plan, and escalate the war veterans allowance as the standard of wages across the country goes up.
May I again refer to the question of the increase in the allowable income to those recipients who have children. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that under the Canada Pension Plan an orphan is defined as being a child of a breadwinner who has died, and is given an allowance of $25 a month. This applies to each child up to four, and the allowance is $12.50 a month for each child thereafter. These people in receipt of war veterans allowance because of unemployability are not able to qualify their future orphans for this allowance.
Sometimes there is lack of consultation between one department and another. In this case I believe the Minister and his staff should consider the difference between the allowance in respect of an orphan where a recipient of war veterans allowance has died and should put the widow in the same category as a married veteran. But the chil-

June 28, 1965	COMMONS
dren of the deceased war veterans allowance recipient cannot qualify for the orphan's benefit which is given under the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore there is all the more reason, I suggest to the Minister in all sincerity, for his considering at the very least raising the maximum income allowable to a married couple with dependant children.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I support the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, although personally I think we would be well advised to pass the bill this evening. But I do think the questions the hon. Member has raised could be brought to the attention of the standing committee when the bill is before it for consideration and review, and I hope that in the meantime the Minister will give serious consideration to the points raised by the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I may say before I sit down that I am very glad to see in this bill the provision whereby "widow" is defined as a widow of a veteran who, having been in receipt of an allowance under this Act, marries and whose husband dies within five years of the date of the marriage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have one point to put before the Minister. It is one that I have raised on previous occasions and I have spoken to the Minister privately about this. It concerns Canadian servicemen who are abroad and have not come back to Canada since either the end of World War I or World War II. They would in all respects qualify for pension except with regard to the residence requirement of one year in Canada. If I remember rightly, this is one of the basic factors, namely that there has to be one year's residence in Canada before a man may qualify for war veterans allowance.
However, there are now a number of cases of servicemen who have stayed abroad, particularly in the United Kingdom. I know some administrative difficulty may be caused in respect of the Canadian servicemen who have lived entirely in the United States, and this has perhaps posed most of the problem on the negative side of this question.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
With regard to those who live in the United Kingdom, frankly I fail to see why, having amended our war veterans allowance provisions in the past few years, first of all the allowance should be payable to a recipient anywhere in the world, and second, that allied servicemen who have completed, either themselves or through their
DEBATES	2973
War Veterans Allowance Act widows in appropriate cases, ten years residence in Canada can qualify for war veterans allowance or whatever consequential allowances are payable under the Act, yet Canadian servicemen, and there are a large number of them, who have remained in the United Kingdom and married there, not having come back to Canada, are just as much servicemen as those who live in Canada. We have accepted the principle of paying benefits offshore. Therefore in those circumstances I am wondering why we disqualify so many by insisting on one year's residence in Canada.
A man who otherwise qualifies for war veterans allowance is obviously precluded for economic reasons from coming back to Canada and establishing one year's residence and then returning to the United Kingdom. You might as well ask him to walk to the moon. Yet why cannot this be done in these cases? I put this before the Minister so that he and the senior officials of the War Veterans Allowance Board can consider this point, which I think should be discussed the next time the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs meets.
I have a very urgent plea on behalf of these veterans, particularly those who live in the United Kingdom and Europe. Those who are closer on the continent of North America I have less sympathy for, although there may be some cases of hardship involving health. Nevertheless I have less sympathy for men on the North American continent who cannot establish a year's residence in Canada. But I do not think we can fault the man who is overseas. If we accept the principle of payments offshore, why cannot we remove this disqualifying bar from these veterans?


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, there is just one more anomaly I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. It relates to the widows of allied veterans. The present Act states that, provided the allied veteran has lived in Canada for ten years, or that the time the allied veteran has lived in Canada coupled with the time his widow subsequently lives in Canada amounts to a combined total of ten years, that veteran or his widow, as the case may be, is eligible for war veterans allowance. However, there is one anomaly under the Act, and this is where the veteran happens to die in a country other than Canada. In that event his widow, no matter how long she lives in Canada, cannot qualify.
2974	COMMONS
War Veterans Allowance Act
I think this is an anomaly which should be brought to the attention of the Minister.
I say this because his Department in Victoria actually had a case of this sort submitted to it. This sort of thing will not occur very often, but it is just as well that these anomalies are eliminated whenever this legislation comes up for amendent.
Therefore I would ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to consider this particular anomaly, which perhaps will occur only once in a hundred times. But once is enough. I realize the officials of the Department, in my experience at any rate, have always done the most they can under the terms of this legislation, but I would ask the Minister to have his staff look into this anomaly and see whether it can be eliminated.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Roger-Joseph Teillet: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, before we pass third reading I should like to ask a question. Is it distinctly understood that when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs meets after the recess it will have the opportunity to discuss this bill and the war veterans allowance bill and to question the officials with respect to their operations, and so on?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give that assurance because the estimates will be before the Committee. We will certainly do everything we can to ensure that there are no restrictions placed on discussions which take place in the Committee, so that we can cover all the aspects of the bill and other matters affecting veterans.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have not insisted that this bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act be sent to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, will the Minister give his assurance that when his estimates come before the Standing Committee he will consider the suggestions made tonight relating to the modifications and amendments which hon. Members think might be considered at that time, and that the Government will consider further amending the Act? Some of these suggestions might

DEBATES	June 28, 1965
involve changes in the regulations, but would the Minister consider this at that time?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this evening with a great deal of interest to the comments made by hon. Members, and I can give the assurance that very serious consideration and study will be given to the suggestions which have been made. I am sure that hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss these suggestions again before the Standing Committee at the appropriate time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

Roger-Joseph Teillet: the second reading of Bill No. C-128, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be those of commendation of the staff responsible for the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. We receive complaints from time to time from all kinds of people, but I remember the words of a former Minister of Veterans Affairs who said that a mistake of the mind will not be forgiven, but that he would forgive a mistake of the heart. This has been the principle under which the members of the staff administering the act have operated, and I want to commend them.
I gave this bill some study over the week end and I commend the director of the Veterans' Land Act and his staff for accomplishing in this bill many of the things for which both the veterans and the staff had asked for. [DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In general terms we are in accord with the proposals of Bill C-128 although there are one or two shortcomings that we feel we should deal with in detail later. These amendments are generally speaking those sought by veterans and hon. Members of this place. The improvements by raising the maximum loans under Parts I and III for small holdings to $18,000 in the case of Part I and to $14,000 in the case of full time farmers are generally acceptable. Some may say that the requirement of $2,600 as the maximum advance on $18,000 is a little high, but I do not think too many people would object to it. We are encouraged by the proposal and will make
June 28, 1985

certain suggestions to the Government when we come to a detailed consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the Members of this party support the principle and purpose of this bill and realize that a number of the suggested amendments have been suggested to the Cabinet by veterans organizations and to Members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and that other amendments are the result of experience gained by officials administering the Act to date.
There has been a great amount of improvement in this type of legislation since the Soldier Settlement Act adopted after the first world war and the Canadian Farm Loans Act which followed that. I remember being a member of the Great War Veterans Association committee, which made recommendations for the amendment of the Soldier Settlement Act years ago, and later as a member of the Legion committee which made proposals which led to the adoption of what we now call the Veterans' Land Act.
I was also a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1945 when this legislation was first presented and know that it was drawn largely on the basis of experience of officials of the Soldier Settlement Board and the Canadian Farm Loans Act, as well as on the basis of the experience of the veterans themselves as represented by resolutions and briefs presented by veterans organizations.
It is quite true to say that this Veterans' Land Act legislation has been successful throughout the years, and I think it has been successful because of the fact that there has been co-operation between governments of the day, veterans organizations and officials, and veterans directly concerned. A great deal of credit is due Brigadier Rutherford, who was the former head of that Board, and who laid the foundation for supervision of farm credit in Canada. This principle was later adopted by the Farm Credit Corporation.
In that connection I should like to quote briefly from the Family Herald. This is not a magazine that is read by intellectuals, but generally by the farming population of Canada. Its editor, Mr. Cram, is interested in this legislation and generally in all aspects of farm legislation. This is what he had to say recently:
There are no statistics to show how many farmers there are in Canada today whose hopes of land ownership had been blighted by the depression of the thirties, then sidetracked by their
Veterans' Land Act
service in World War II, finally to see those hopes come to fruition under VLA loans. Their numbers are undoubtedly legion.
Apart from the provision of those individual opportunities the legacy which VLA leaves to Canadian agriculture will be a quarter century of practical, pragmatic administration of farm credit problems. Guided by some of the mistakes and misfortunes of its post-World War I predecessor, the Soldier Settlement Board, VLA was able to develop a program of assistance better tailored to the individual veterans capabilities and requirements.
On at least three major counts, VLA deserves special commendation. First, its program possessed the needed flexibility to develop with the changing tempo of Canadian farming. The somewhat modest loan limits established in the immediate post-war years were gradually extended as modern agricultural techniques began to demand larger and larger amounts of capital.
That is what this bill recognizes.
Second, from its very inception to the present time, VLA gave recognition to the needs of those veterans whose needs were so difficult to categorize: the smallholder, the part time farmer.
I am very glad to see that this is recognized because I have always maintained that there is a great place for smallholders and part-time farmers in this country. Many of these people supplement their income in this way. Very often they operate recreational facilities, such as small hotels or tourist accommodation resorts. For that reason I am pleased by this provision.
At no time in its history was VLA unduly swayed by economic planning which overlooked individual hopes or ambitions. Indeed, roughly half of the loans approved were for smallholders. In so doing, VLA recognized part-time farming as an economic fact and as a way of life which many veterans wanted and were capable of achieving.
There is no doubt about it. The annual reports of the Department show that they have been most successful in this respect.
Finally, years before anyone dreamed up the term, "supervised credit" VLA fieldmen were offering guidance and management advice to farming veterans. It was an approach which reflected the philosophy of VLA director Tom Rutherford and fortunately it followed him to the more liberally endowed Farm Credit Corporation.
He goes on and makes some further complimentary remarks about the work of the officials involved in the administration of this legislation.
I could not resist the opportunity of placing that quotation on the record because I believe it is only right to give credit where we think credit is due.
I take this opportunity to refer to the work of the officials of the VLA in relation to projects which are being undertaken under

June 28, 1965
Veterans' Land Act
the Columbia River Treaty and I am glad to see the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) in the House this evening to hear my plea on behalf of some of the veterans I have the honour to represent.
Since the passing of this treaty, one of the co-chairmen of that hydraheaded monster, known as the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, has been tramping around to every organization in British Columbia which would listen to him stating how generously everybody was going to be treated. I may say that that has not been the case as far as a number of persons I have the honour to represent, including veterans.
Today I received a letter in this vein from a man affected by this proposal. Inevitably these people who write me have been on the land for 50 or 60 years and are usually over 70 years of age. Inevitably I write back and tell them to stand firm and to turn down every offer they get until they feel they have received justice. I do so because I know the hydro people are very sensitive to public opinion, and know that veterans stand a good chance of getting a reasonable offer if they stand firm.
Quite recently I was very pleased to learn that one veteran, whose case I brought to the attention of the Minister, received a very satisfactory settlement. This case involved some very minor matters, but I give the Minister full credit in this regard.
I was very pleased to hear that another veteran who wrote me had accepted my advice to stand firm, had the courage to do so and received recently an offer of $4,000 more than the original offer, with the right to retain two thirds of the property which was originally intended to be taken over.
Another chap wrote me from Renata, British Columbia, whom I have known for 40 years and who, by the way, is over 70 years of age, stating that he had received an offer from the British Columbia Hydro Evaluation Committee. I wrote him giving him the same advice, to stand firm.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You sound like Ann Landers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was pleased to give him that advice, and have since learned that his first offer of $14,000 was increased by some $4,500.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Now, I want to mention that under this Act the advisers only have the right to deal with veterans officially who have purchased under the Veterans' Land Act. They can give advice to them. I appreciate, however, that

the Minister has been kind enough to tell them to call on other veterans who are not under the Veterans' Land Act and advise and assist them. The officials have gone around advising them as to their circumstances, and so on. I want to say I appreciate the fact the Minister takes that stand, and the veterans I have the honour to represent appreciate the work that has been done by the officials in this respect, so far as Veterans' Land Act holders and veterans in general are concerned. I hope the Minister keeps up the good work and when he visits the Koote-nays, as I understand he will on July 7, I hope he will tell them he is right behind them and willing to do all he can to see that they get justice.
I have another matter to bring to the attention of the House before I continue my remarks. Some of these former soldiers do not swallow everything that is told to them. One of them wrote me recently asking how income tax applied if he accepted an offer for his property from the B.C. Hydro Power Authority. I wrote to the Minister of National Revenue asking him to give me some information on this subject and the Minister replied at considerable length. I want to quote his letter because putting it on Hansard is the easiest way of putting it in the hands of some 500 people who are interested in this subject.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I knew there was some motive in all this letter writing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. Member says I have a motive here. I am standing up for the rights of the people I have the honour to represent, and I have already made a public announcement as to what I intend to do in the near future. I quote the Minister's reply: Dear Mr. Herridge:
I am pleased to answer your letter of the 10th June addressed to Mr. H. H. Milbum of the Taxation Division. You attached a copy of the letter addressed to you by Mr. Chris Spicer of Nakusp, B.C.
Mr. Spicer is concerned that the compensation received by persons who will be displaced by the construction of the High Arrow Dam from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority may be subject to income tax.
In the usual course, it is quite certain that the assessors from the Taxation Division will have regard to these compensation payments to ensure that any resulting tax is paid as required by the statute. The statute is complex and its application may vary depending on the particular circumstances of the taxpayer, the nature of the property and of its use by such taxpayer, and the basis on which the actual compensation has been determined. For instance, it will make a difference whether the property was held to produce income
June 28, 1985

from a business, to produce rental income, as stock-in-trade, or solely for personal use.
In such circumstances, it is risky to generalize but it may be helpful to have the following general comments which would be applicable when a person receives compensation for property taken by expropriation:
1.	the compensation will be regarded as being for the physical assets expropriated even though consideration was given to intangibles, loss of income, etc., in arriving at the final compensation figure;
2.	where the physical assets include depreciable property a reasonable portion of the compensation will be considered as proceeds of disposition of such depreciable property and, in some cases, will result in recapture of all or part of the capital cost allowance previously claimed on such depreciable property;
3.	where the physical assets include stock-intrade (such as land of a dealer in real estate) a reasonable part of the compensation that would relate to such stock in trade would be included in income, and
4.	in some cases an amount will be paid in addition to the compensation to cover interest from the date the compensation is determined to the payment date. Such interest, when received, would be income subject to tax.
I am sorry that I cannot be more explicit but the provisions of the Income Tax Act cover such a variety of circumstances that almost every case must be considered on its own merit.
Yours truly,
E. J. Benson,
Minister of National Revenue.
I was glad the Minister went to such pains to write me at this length. I have read the letter into the record so it will be a matter of record. I urge the Minister to advise his officials to warn every veteran who has settled under the Veterans' Land Act, or any other veteran, to inquire of the Income Tax Department what income tax they may be liable to pay before they accept any final offer from the B.C. Power Authority. I am sure they would be willing to do this. I have mentioned these facts because I am interested in doing what I can on behalf of the veterans I have the honour to represent. I want to mention that other Members in the House should realize that when you get justice for a veteran who has settled under the Veterans' Land Act or when you get justice for any veteran as a result of co-operation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, you are also laying the foundation for justice for all the people who will be subject to dispossession as a result of the projects under the Columbia River Treaty.
I want to thank the Minister again for what has been done in this respect and I trust his officials will continue to do all they can to help these men. All they are asking is fair and reasonable compensation for the
Veterans' Land Act
purchase or expropriation of land which they have spent the greater part of their lives in clearing, for planting trees or general farming. With these few remarks, I will resume my seat and I apologize for taking a little longer than is usual in these rather exhausting circumstances.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I just
want to be sure that the hon. Member who has just spoken wants to be reported in a way which he would not perhaps wish to have stand on the record. I understood him to say that the Family Herald was not read by intellectuals but it was read by farmers, implying that in many cases these are not the same people. I think he would agree with me that some of the great intellects in the country belong to farmers. Perhaps he used it in the sense the word is beginning to acquire now, namely that an intellectual is one who is rather a self-appointed, opinionated person who tells other people what they should do. If that is his intention, then I would agree with him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad the hon. gentleman raised the question. In case I would be misunderstood, I should have said, usually not read by the so-called intellectual elite.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We in this party generally support the many amendments that are provided in Bill No. C-128 concerning the Veterans' Land Act. We know that there are provisions in the bill before us to increase the limits of the loans available to veterans under one section from $12,000 to $18,000 and another section from $12,000 to $20,000. So far as we are concerned this just gives those people who are financing under the Veterans' Land Act the same kind of justice as has been provided now under the Farm Credit Corporation and Farm Improvement Loans Acts. We know also, Mr. Speaker, that there is a provision for varying the terms of repayment and that the director of the Veterans' Land Act shall have authority, at his discretion, to vary the terms of repayment from time to time.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a provision that should be in the Veterans' Land Act. It should be included also in several other measures that are on the federal statute books. I say that because during the 30 year period for which these loans were originally advanced there could be years when a veteran is unable to meet his payments on principal and interest, or generally to amortize his loan. Certainly if there is some way to defer or

June 28. 1965
Veterans' Land Act
postpone these repayments during a particularly hard year it will save the farm unit, save the veteran from disaster, and maintain the value of the farm unit because an experienced man will be continuing its operation. It is far more satisfactory to the department, to the veteran and to all involved if there is provision to get over these difficult years without loading the veteran up with substantially increased payments the following year, and we note with pleasure that there is this kind of provision in the bill.
There is also provision for extending the use which can be made of loans, something which will be generally useful. But we expect the Minister and the department to be careful in extending their use for purposes other than farm units because we do not want the intent of the act to be abused. However, there are many cases in which some supplementary enterprise could help a veteran meet the cost of living.
The bill also provides that the director may sell for something other than cash property that comes to him. This is a tremendous improvement, because in many cases when sold for cash the price is substantially less than could be obtained otherwise, and the veteran who has equity in the unit will get more from the proceeds of the resale if a prospective purchaser can work out a financing arrangement, rather than paying fully in cash.
There is also provision for consolidation of debt owed to the director into one contract, if a number of contracts are involved. This is also an improvement. We in this party generally support these provisions in the bill.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to say a word on Bill No. C-128, but since we have only the English text, I shall do so the next time around, when it comes up for third reading.
Until then, I hope the minister will try to provide a French translation of the bill for the benefit of the committee which will sit at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, in order that I may be able to study it in advance.
That is all I have to say this evening on the matter.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily we in this party would ask that the bill be studied by the Veterans Affairs Committee, but since many veterans are anxiously awaiting its

passage we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition wish to see it passed as quickly as possible. The Minister promised last September that this legislation would be introduced by Christmas. His promise has been of absolutely no use to the veterans of Canada and to the vital work to be done under the Veterans' Land Act.
On behalf of more than one of my constituents 1 wish to say they complain that under the Act, if they own, shall we say, a small house and lot in a suburban location, and if they wish to buy a little more land in order to raise garden produce, poultry, or engage in a limited form of animal husbandry, they are impeded from getting credit under the Act. I do not think it is against the law for a veteran to borrow money to buy a small lot for this purpose across the road from his residence, but at present it is against the rules, since it is not contiguous to his holding.
I have already requested that one veteran in my home town be allowed to do so, but credit has been refused. I have spoken to the departmental field official, and now I bring this matter to the Minister's attention in the hope that he will give it the consideration it merits.
I wish to raise another matter regarding the pensioning of the widows of veterans but I am afraid if I do so you, Mr. Speaker, will rule me out of order at this time. Therefore I shall raise it at the next convenient occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
On clause 1.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with clause 1, I should like to point out that we did not receive the French copy of the bill and that this is most inconvenient. On the other hand, we realize that the minister wants to have this bill passed as soon as possible and we have no objection to that. However, could the minister assure us that we will have the French copy of the bill before third reading? If not, we will not agree blindly to all the provisions of this bill if we do not have the French version to consider them. Is the minister prepared to guarantee that the bill will not be read for the third time before we receive the French version?
June 28, 1965

Veterans' Land Act


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Under the circumstances, I dig a well costing $1,000. Previously this have to accede to the request of the hon. cost could not have been incorporated into member and postpone third reading of the the debt because prior approval had not been bill. I was told that the French version was given. The director now purchases the im-not ready but that we would get it tomorrow, provement by paying off the debt. The debt If we could agree on third reading tomorrow is then re-amortized in keeping with the afternoon, it would be satisfactory.	veteran's ability to meet the payments.


Gilles Grégoire: Could I ask the minister to take this opportunity to find out why this bill has not yet been translated? He would thus perhaps find out why French copies are always late. Perhaps the minister could obtain this information and tell us the reason for such delays.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I certainly intend to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
Mr. Nesbifi:: Could the Minister tell us whether this covers the situation which arises frequently where a veteran obtains a loan for the purpose of building a home. Before final approval is given by the director the building contractor finds he has to have some of the material approved by the appropriate authorities, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and approval is obtained from them before it is obtained from the director. In the meantime, debts are incurred and in a number of cases this causes a problem as a result of misunderstanding on the part of the veteran and the contractor. This clause seems likely to rectify such a situation and I am wondering whether the Minister can assure us that this is the case.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am informed that this is one of the purposes of the clause, among others.


Mr. Harkness:: As I read this clause I take it that should a veteran vacate his interest completely the director would be empowered when determining the amount of money which will be paid to the veteran on account of his interest in the land to take into consideration the value of the improvements which the veteran may have made during the term of his occupancy. Who will determine the value of these improvements for the purpose of arriving at the final payment to be made to the veteran?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The decision as to the value will be based on outstanding bills and the assessment by the director and his staff. Perhaps I could cite an example of what is intended here. A veteran may suddenly run short of water for his livestock and have to


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is it not the purpose of this clause to look after the case where a veteran decides to turn back the land to the director, in which case the value the veteran has acquired in this land will be refunded him, taking into account any improvements which may have been made?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: In the majority of such cases this land would be posted and public tenders would be called. So the value of the property would be decided by the purchase price which could be obtained.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But this clause says: "Where the director acquires land and improvements thereon from a veteran-". Surely this must take into consideration the case of a veteran who gives up his land to the director and is paid off taking into account whatever equity he has in the land plus the improvements.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The clause is intended to convey that the director when acquiring land, that is, for the purpose of establishing a veteran on land-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, but the language of the bill is "Where the director acquires land and improvements thereon from a veteran-" it does not say "for a veteran". Therefore the only meaning I can get from it is that this is intended to cover the case where a veteran liquidates his contract with the director. Provision is being made so that his equity can be paid to him.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: It might clear up this difficulty if I restate what I said a few moments ago. The position technically is that the director purchases the improvement from the veteran by paying off the debt. It then becomes the property of the director. But it is still for the benefit of the established veteran.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then this has nothing to do with a veteran who terminates his contract with the department or with the director. It is intended to cover cases in which a veteran acquires more land or buys improvements. The necessary payments could then be consolidated into the debt.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is right.

June 28, 1965
Veterans' Land Act


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to ask the Minister whether he means that the resale value of the property less the amount of the equity that the department has acquired would be the price which a veteran selling the property or giving it up would expect to receive from the transaction.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The best way of answering that question would be to say that on the disposal of a property to the public a veteran would receive the difference between the indebtedness to the director and the amount of the purchase price, and the amount of the sale price, if any.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Another brief question to the Minister. When will these amendments come into effect, and are they to be retroactive in nature? Will these provisions go back six months or a year?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: These provisions will come into effect on Royal Assent being given, without any retroactive feature.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: So the director will not be in a position to help out with respect to any difficulties which may presently exist.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I did not mean they would not be retroactive in that sense. Improvements which have been acquired by the veteran and which are presently part of his indebtedness can now be acquired by the director.
[DOT] (9.30 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question arising from the Minister's reply. I knew that he did not mean it would not be retroactive. But let us say that the veteran who has now been established under the V.L.A. has incurred debts. He cannot of course encumber the title because the title lies with the director; but let us say he has incurred debts for certain improvements to his property. Will he be entitled to apply for an additional loan to pay off those debts, provided of course they add an equivalent value to the property?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was in essence the answer I was attempting to give to the hon. Member a moment ago. That will be possible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, is the purpose of this clause to enable a veteran who has, say, had a small holding, a housing unit or a full time farm for at least ten years, to lease

it under any terms that he finds advantageous to him without having to secure the permission of the director? Is he empowered to do that under this clause?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The veteran can make the arrangements, but he must have the permission of the director.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I did not hear that answer.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The veteran can make his own arrangements with regard to leasing, but he must have the permission of the director as long as the title is vested in the director of the V.L.A.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question along the lines of the question asked by the hon. Member for Calgary South. That is only applicable if the veteran is holding an agreement with the V.L.A. in excess of ten years. If he is working under a 20-year agreement, that would apply; but if he is only under a ten-year agreement he is free to do what he wishes.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: After the ten years, provided he has repaid his indebtedness to his director, he is of course absolutely free to do as he wishes, because he is in the same position as any other man who owns his land outright.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I want to get at particularly is whether this permission would apply to a leasing of the property. The original provisions under the Veterans' Land Act were, particularly as far as a regular farm was concerned, that the veteran had to continue operating that farm and continue in residence on it. I take it that this amendment is designed to relax that provision and permit the veteran who has lived on and operated his farm for ten years to lease it to somebody if he finds it advantageous to do so. Does this also apply to a small holding and a housing unit which he has secured under the Veterans' Land Act?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am given to understand that this would apply after the ten-year period. When a veteran has gone absent for any purpose in the past, the V.L.A. has been responsible for all leasing arrangements of the property. Now this will be the responsibility of the veteran after he has earned his grant; that is, after the ten years or after he has acquired title.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This applies no matter what type of land the veteran secured, whether it
June 28, 1965

was just a housing unit, a small holding or a lull time farm?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on clause 4, subclause (4), the purpose of this amendment is to extend the purposes for which the proceeds of sale of livestock or farm equipment may be used; but it does not really, if you read the subclause, indicate what those extensions are. I wonder whether the Minister could give us some explanation of what is the intended use of these extensions for the proceeds of sale of livestock or farm equipment.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this clause is to permit a veteran to use moneys from proceeds of sales of this kind to retire debts for which the director himself has no responsibility-that is outside debts- where it is deemed wise and proper.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One other question, Mr. Chairman. Would the veteran, for this purpose, have to obtain permission from the director to use the funds for retiring these debts, or would passing this particular amendment to the Act give him the power to make this decision without the permission of the director?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Chairman; he would require the permission of the director in any event.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7.
Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Minister about clause 7, section 16A of the Act. My question is motivated by a case which occurred within the last two or three days. A young veteran who served in World War II died suddenly owing the director $2,600. His widow was under the impression that he was insured by the director under section 16A as it stood before this bill was brought in. I would like to ask the Minister if he could advise us whether this widow is covered in this particular case; that is, whether she actually owes $2,600. She is a widow with two small children and it would be practically impossible for her to make the payments without the father and breadwinner. I know that the Minister would
Veterans' Land Act
perhaps have to consult his officials here because this is fairly technical, but can he see any recourse for this particular widow under the new section 16A? Will she be covered for this amount? It is a very distressing case, I would point out to the Minister. The period of retroactivity which he mentioned a moment ago might cover this case; I do not know. But this is fairly technical language and perhaps the officials might advise the Minister and he could give an answer.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this clause is as follows. Because of age and increased loan amounts, the cost of insurance would be substantial if coverage of the entire amount of the loan was mandatory. There is merit in covering the breadwinner if the veteran is a woman. Premiums on the arrears will now be paid from the Veterans' Land Act fund and, as before, recovered from the veteran. I could not at this moment give the hon. Member any satisfactory answer. I have serious doubts that there is any satisfactory answer, but if he would bring the case to the attention of the director of the Veterans' Land Act I am sure he will look into and do whatever is possible for him to do.


John Chester MacRae: Up to this point there has been no compulsion on the part of the veteran who is holding land under the Veterans' Land Act to have insurance which would cover him in the event of his death. There was nothing there to this point that made it mandatory, in other words.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Chairman, this was voluntary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 8, if I am not completely mistaken, when a veteran was in default as far as taxes were concerned, the director paid the taxes. This amount would then be part of the amount owed by the veteran to the director. [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As far as I can see, the only change made here is that provision is made for the director to enter into an agreement with the veteran, which agreement presumably fixes the rate of interest on the amount the director has paid on the taxes in default, or if no such agreement is entered into the veteran will then automatically be charged the rate of 5 per cent. Under the situation presently prevailing, when the veteran is in default of taxes the director of the Veterans' Land Act

June 28. 1965
Veterans' Land Act
pays the taxes owing, which then become part of the debt of the veteran concerned to the director, he being liable for interest at only 3 per cent, which was the rate at which most of these Veterans' Land Act contracts were entered into. In other words, this is a provision by which the veteran can be charged 2 per cent or more beyond that which he is charged at the present time.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that most of these charges are now 5 per cent. However, up until now it was not possible for the director to pay taxes or assessments until the arrears reached the stage where they became a matter of sale because of taxes owing. This is to enable the director to enter into an arrangement with a veteran at any time in order to look after payment of his taxes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But is my basic contention nevertheless not the fact, namely that up until the time the veteran became in default of taxes the director paid the taxes and the amount so paid became part of the veteran's debt to the director, and he paid interest at the rate of 3 per cent, which was the normal rate prevailing when most of these contracts were entered into? Whereas now the veteran pays 5 per cent or more.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is correct. The amount was 3J per cent, but in a number of these cases the rate is now 5 per cent after the initial amount of $6,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point I should like to make is this. Would it not be more equitable to continue the rate of interest at the rate which the veteran paid when he entered into the agreement when, owing to unfortunate circumstances, he fell into default in his taxes, instead of increasing the burden upon him, which in most cases I think the veteran would find extremely difficult to discharge in any event?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am informed there was an amendment in 1959 to enable the director to charge 5 per cent on overdue balances of unpaid taxes; so really there is no change in the rate effected by this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Disposal of property.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides authority for the director to sell property of a veteran on terms other than cash. I would ask the Minister whether under this provision the director will be able to acquire
property given to him by reason of default, refinancing it under the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act to another veteran. Or is it necessary that all these pieces of property go to public tender first, so that the veteran in default may be able to regain his full equity?
The other point is that, even if the property did go to public tender, would it be possible for some other veteran to acquire the property by public tender and have the financing done under the provisions of the V.L.A.?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: First of all, I must say that the director has been disposing of property in this way by Order in Council. He will now be permitted to do this under the Act. It is always permissible at any time for the director, when he comes into possession of the property of a veteran in default, to establish another veteran on the property. There is no requirement that he must dispose of the property otherwise. It is then the duty of the director to do whatever he can to protect the interests of both veterans involved-the one who has failed in his establishment and the one being re-established. But the interest of the veteran is the primary concern in all these cases on either side.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Terminal dates of sale, advance, loan or grant.
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, this is one occasion on which I want to criticize the Minister and his staff for an omission in not making any amendment to section 25A of the existing Act, which says, in effect, that any veteran may receive assistance if he has not qualified by October 31, 1968. I find no fault with the time limitation for application for assistance by new veterans up to March 31, 1974, but the Minister will find himself in the position, come 1968, that veterans will have had their qualification certificates cancelled unilaterally by the Government without consultation, even without the veterans themselves knowing about it. Therefore I warn the Minister now that when 1968 comes along the Government will have to be aware of the many cases where veterans are not qualified, in spite of the fact that they have no knowledge of their disqualification. I know there will be another five years to run but, come 1968, the Minister will run into trouble, so he might as well be forewarned about it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I will make a note of that, Mr. Chairman.

June 28, 1965

Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Could the Minister explain how this clause will improve the position of the Indian veteran in securing a loan under the Veterans' Land Act?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, up until now it has not been possible for the director to purchase these lands with buildings on them. This clause will enable the director to purchase buildings which are situate on these lands. That is, he will be able to purchase the buildings without purchasing the lands, in the case of provincial lands or lands belonging to the reservation. The director would own only the buildings, not the lands themselves.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has not the situation always been, and does it not continue to be, that as far as the Indian veteran is concerned, in order for him to secure any advantage under the Veterans' Land Act he would have to secure an allocation of lands on his reserve?
I do not think there has ever been any question about the right to secure a loan to purchase whatever houses or buildings were on the lands-in other words, improvements to the land. However, the land itself could not be purchased because it was part of the reserve.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am informed that this is tidying up. The hon. Member is perfectly correct that this was being done, but the legality of it has been questioned. Therefore this clause will tidy up the section of the Act and permit the director to operate with a clearer conscience


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
On clause 18.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, just one question on this clause. Is any age limit laid down as far as veterans are concerned to enable them to get these various loans? There was always an age limit to this bill. Does that age limit still apply or does this relaxation with regard to the amount of the loan not take into consideration the age limit?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, there is no age limit, Mr. Chairman. Apparently there was an age limit, but this is a matter which is left largely in the hands of the director and his staff to judge, in view of the circumstances
Veterans' Land Act
of the veteran. There is no age limit provided for in the Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was an age limit, and it is my belief that there still is an age limit, at least in some way, in respect of a veteran obtaining settlement under the Veterans' Land Act. I am wondering whether a veteran aged 70 could be able to take advantage of this increased credit available, or whether there is some age limit.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is a matter which is the subject of decision by the director and his staff. They must exercise their own judgment in a case such as that illustrated by the hon. Member. There is no age limit in the Act, and these things must be a matter of judgment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.
On clause 22-Interest rates.
George Louis Chatterton: June 28, 1965
Business of the House
1 per cent to cover the cost of handling the money.


Mr, Teillel:: Perhaps I can assure the hon. Member by stating that the rate contemplated herein is almost exactly that suggested by the hon. Member. The hon. Member suggested the cost of long term money plus one eighth of 1 per cent. The actual figure is closer to one quarter of 1 per cent, so in effect I think we are carrying out the suggestion made by the hon. Member.


George Louis Chatterton: I am afraid I cannot agree with that suggestion. The Governor in Council under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act sets the rate at 6| per cent in spite of the fact that during the last five years the cost of long term money to the Government has only been 5J per cent. Perhaps the Minister would undertake that the interest rate to be set by the Governor in Council will not be more than one quarter of 1 per cent, or one eighth of 1 per cent over and above the cost of long term money to the Government. Even that small obligation on the part of the Government in respect of this interest rate would be helpful.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the House would consider sitting a few minutes past ten o'clock in order to deal with the Judges Act legislation and the resolution preceding the bill to provide for the payment of development grants for the establishment of facilities in respect of designated areas. In that way hon. Members would have an opportunity to peruse the bill and be in a position to debate it tomorrow on second reading.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is agreeable to the Members of this party and I suggest that we sit until eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how we can do that, in view of the fact that it is now past ten o'clock.
[Mr. Chatterton.i


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the Members now opposing this suggestion have just come into the Chamber.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, is there any part of the suggestion I made that is not agreeable to hon. Members? I should like to know the feeling of the House in this regard. It seems to me that it is in the common interest of all hon. Members that we proceed with at least some of these matters so that hon. Members will be in a position to debate the proposals tomorrow.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Minister wanted to proceed in this way, this should have been discussed among the House Leaders of the various parties. The Members of this party feel that we have had a fairly long day and that there is no reason we should not call it ten o'clock, unless some previous arrangement or agreement has been made in respect of certain legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has made a good point. There has been virtually a continuous discussion among House Leaders in this regard in an effort to bring this part of our business to a conclusion so that a recess can be taken shortly. Many adjustments have been made throughout today and this evening, and had the House Leaders found themselves in a position to make firm commitments I am sure that I could have made a much more tidy announcement. However, I hesitate to make any announcement which is in the nature of a request to arbitrarily impose an order on the House. For that reason I thought I should make this request in the presence of all hon. Members in order that they could reach an appropriate decision.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the Minister has now said is a perfectly fair statement. There have been discussions between the Minister and various Members regarding the two resolutions that appeared today as Government notices of motion and also regarding the resolution respecting the Judges Act. There are Members of this party who do not wish to proceed after ten o'clock with any one of the three.
June 28, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimous consent to sit after ten o'clock. Would the House Leader care to make a statement about the business for tomorrow?


Michael Starr: Make a motion.


George James McIlraith: I cannot make a motion under the new rules because there is no business before the House.
The difficulty about announcing the sequence of business for tomorrow is precisely the difficulty with which we have been faced in the last few minutes. I should like to consult with the House Leaders as to what items they want to call first, so we can get on with the program tomorrow. Perhaps if I may be a bit optimistic I would say we might conclude tomorrow night. I prefer, in the light of that, not to give the sequence of business for tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Frank Howard: After all those moans and groans, I merely want to take up the case of a poor individual who is spending 20 years of his life in the penitentiary, and I think unjustly so. The other day I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) to look into the case of one John Darrell Peters, an inmate of a B.C. penitentiary, with respect to seeing whether or not he could order a new trial. The answer I got from the Minister was that a former Minister, Hon. Mr. Fulton, had reviewed the case quite thoroughly and come to the conclusion that there was no chance of a retrial and that the present Minister agreed with that decision. a sort of Fulton-Favreau formula in miniature.
Now, Mr. Peters has not been a model inmate in a penitentiary, I will admit that, from the outset. By "model" I mean he has not been docile or malleable to the rules inside the penitentiary. I submit that part of the reason for his attitude toward officialdom within the prison has been the treatment he received at the hands of the court and at the hands of the lawyer he retained. He was tried by one Magistrate Thoburn and sentenced to 20 years for a variety of offences. Mr. Peters has sworn a number of affidavits,
DEBATES	2985
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which I hope I will have time to read into the record in order to put his case from his point of view. In one of those sworn on June 17, 1965 he says, and I quote:
That I, in fact, asked Magistrate Thoburn for a remand to "obtain and instruct counsel", and was refused,
That the hearing before Magistrate Thoburn was, to my knowledge, a session of "closed court",
That I was in a state of shock, and did not understand the import of the proceedings before Magistrate Thoburn,
That Magistrate Thoburn did not in any manner instruct me as to my right to obtain counsel, nor the seriousness of the said charges; and never advised me in any manner whatsoever,
That I was held without the benefit of help or assistance in the entire time of the proceedings before Magistrate Thoburn; and was in fact denied the one phone call, as prescribed by law; and was hindered and restrained from contacting help or assistance in all respects.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I do not want to take the time to read all the affidavit but just the salient parts from it. He says in another affidavit:
That in a letter, to C. B. Saunders, Esq. (Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Ontario, Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Ontario), dated the 25th day of April; and signed C. A. Thoburn, Magistrate; in respect to the said application for appeal, he delivered, or caused to be delivered, the following information, which was false, and caused the informant to suffer a denial of justice, namely-
Both accused were asked if they had counsel, to which they replied, "... no...". They were then asked if they wished to proceed today or did they want to obtain counsel. Both said that they wanted to plead guilty "today"-to use their own expression, ",. .we'll go on today, we want to get it over with.. ."
That upon examination of the Official Court Transcripts, on page 7; the only question that had been put thus far was; Clerk of the Court: How do you elect to be tried, John Darrell Peters? The Accused Peters: By the Magistrate. Clerk of the Court: Peters, how do you plead to all charges? The Accused Peters: Guilty.
There is another matter, in that there was an arrangement between himself and the police officers to plead guilty to certain charges, wipe them off the books and get a light sentence. The affidavit further reads:
That in a letter dated October 23, 1963; To: Frank Howard, Esq., M.P. (House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario). And signed by C. A. Thoburn, Q.C. Magistrate, said the following in part, namely- I always ask the following questions when a person is charged with a serious offence:
1.	Are you prepared to proceed with your trial?
2.	Do you wish an opportunity to retain counsel?
If they say "yes" to the first and "no" to the
second, I then have the man arraigned.
Then further Peters swears:
That upon examination of the Official Court Transcripts, not one word, as set out in (3) and (5) as stated above, appears anywhere in the transcripts.
2986	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. John Darrell Peters in another affidavit claims and states:
That having filed the said form, he duly hired and paid a Toronto Barrister, and Attorney at Law, one Gary K. C. Braund, and paid the said Mr. Braund the sum of $200 to appear and argue the appeal, and to purchase the transcripts.
That in a letter dated the 15th of January, 1964, directed to Professor Stuart Ryan, from the Office of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Ontario; and signed by Mr. J. A. Preston (Assistant Registrar) he stated in part as follows,
There was no counsel on the argument of the matter; however, the application together with a report of His Worship Magistrate Thobum, was before the members of the Court of Appeal and was considered by them before this order was made on May 26th, 1960.
That after numerous complaints to Mr. Braund, on August 15th, 1960, a letter was received addressed to the Governor of the Kingston Penitentiary, that said in part the following:
I am enclosing in your safe-keeping a money order in the amount of $50 to be given to John Peters... and was signed by Gary Braund.
Then, after a lot of other correspondence he finally got the remaining $150 from this lawyer, Gary Braund. I merely place these small parts of the whole case on the record to plead with the Minister to look more thoroughly into this case and give John Darrell Peters the benefit of the doubt, and give him another trial because he obviously did not receive justice at the hands of Magistrate Thobum. He obviously was led astray by this lawyer, Gary Braund, who said he would represent him in court and in fact did not, and he had to go to great lengths in order to get his money back.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the document the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) read from sounds very much like, although it may not have been identical
DEBATES	June 28, 1965
to, an affidavit dated March 22, 1965 sworn by John Darrell Peters, and forwarded by himself to myself on that date for forwarding in due course to the Minister, so that the particular facts referred to by Mr. Peters in that affidavit would have been before the Minister most recently in his consideration of the case.
No one, Mr. Speaker, would claim that the proceedings in the courts of justice are infallible. They are like any other human endeavour; they are subject to great fallibility both as to errors of judgment and errors of fact. But I think it should be borne in mind that in so far as any case can be, the facts concerning the conviction of John Darrell Peters have been very thoroughly examined at various levels. There has been a series of applications by way of prerogative writ in this province and in British Columbia. There was the application before the Ontario Court of Appeal and there was an application for leave to appeal heard before five justices of the Supreme Court, an application which was dismissed. In addition, the former Minister of Justice, as I know personally from the volume of the files, had extensively examined the situation surrounding this case. The material referred to by the hon. Member was also received by me and was entered for consideration.
Subject to the fallibility which these proceedings inevitably risk, this particular situation has been given as full a hearing as possible. Reasonable men acting fairly have decided that no injustice was done and I therefore conclude that the suggestion that the Minister might act under section 596 either in respect of the direction of a new trial or of a hearing before the court of appeal would not be justified in the circumstances.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.14 p.m.

Tuesday, June 29, 1985