1966-02-23

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 23, 1966
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, February 23, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General SHIPBUILDING



BRITISH COLUMBIA-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING SUBSIDIES

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) asked me the other day to table my correspondence with the premier of British Columbia concerning the shipbuilding subsidies program, and I am very glad to do this now.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege related to certain remarks reported to have been made in Toronto yesterday by one Jerry Goodis, president of the Toronto advertising firm of Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Limited.
As reported in the business section of this morning's Globe and Mail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister. Notice was given to the Chair within a few minutes of two o'clock or around two o'clock that this question of privilege might be raised by the minister. However, as far as I know, no written notice was given as required by the rules, and I
suggest in the circumstances that the minister cannot raise a question of privilege unless the house desires to allow the minister to make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the house for its indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
As reported in the business section of this morning's Globe and Mail, Mr. Goodis has publicly accused me of what he calls partisan pork-barrelling in the allotment of what he refers to-


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -as $5 million worth of centennial advertising and promotion.
If I might correct Mr. Goodis on one point of fact at the outset, I would point out that the $5 million figure referred to represents the total amount of advertising and promotion to be contracted by government agencies-and this includes the government travel bureau as well as the centennial commission-for the promotion inside Canada and without of our centennial celebrations.
Of that amount authorization has to date been finalized for only $1,260,000. This involves promotion and advertising inside Canada by the centennial commission. Within this amount three separate contracts have been awarded; one for English language advertising, one for French language advertising and one for the special promotion of the Canada Festival performing arts program. The award of a fourth, for public relations services, currently is under study.
As to the three that have been awarded, I wish to make it clear that these were matters initiated and decided by the centennial commission itself. The procedure followed by the commission in this regard was completely in line with that normally followed by all governments and private interests in this field. It was-and I have a statement from the general manager of this organization to confirm this-in line to the letter with the code of ethics laid down by the Institute of Canadian Advertising.
The commission, as is done in every other case, invited certain advertising and public relations agencies to bid for the contracts.

February 23, 1966
Question of Privilege
The number invited totalled not four, as was suggested by Mr. Goodis, but 15. The live agencies which were invited to bid for the major English advertising contract in particular account among them for 40 per cent of all the business done in this field in Canada. Rather than being the "pets" of any minister or government, they are acknowledged by both public and private interests to be the leading practitioners of their profession in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has great hesitation in interrupting the minister, particularly in view of the fact that she has received the consent or unanimous agreement of the house to make a statement at this time, presumably on the question of privilege. I have a very serious doubt as to whether it is a question of privilege at all. The minister is questioning the accuracy of statements made outside the house, and I suggest to her that perhaps another opportunity might be afforded to her to rectify the record, if she feels that the record ought to be rectified.
I submit with the greatest of deference to the minister that there is really no question of privilege. I have heard the substance of what she proposes to say at this time, and as I say I hesitate to interrupt her, but I would ask her not to pursue her statement and to bring it on at another occasion.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you think there is no question of privilege in the statement being made by the minister, I think the matter should end right there.


Mr. Speaker:: This, of course, is what the Chair is suggesting. However, there is nothing to prevent the minister from making a statement on another occasion, but not as a question of privilege.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it could be asked whether the minister will found a motion on the question of privilege. Is that not the test?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can make a motion if there is a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair is of the opinion that there is not.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with article 19 of the constitution of the International Labour
[Miss LaMarsh.l
Organization I wish to table the texts in English and French of the instruments adopted at the forty ninth international labour conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, in June, 1965. The instruments consist of two international labour conventions and three recommendations.
The constitution of the I.L.O. requires a member state to bring conventions and recommendations "before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action". In the case of a federal state there is the further obligation on the part of the member state to refer instruments which are wholly or partially within provincial legislation jurisdiction to appropriate provincial authorities "for the enactment of legislation or other action", and to arrange for periodic consultations with a view to promoting co-ordinated action to give effect to the provisions of the instruments.
The opinion of the Minister of Justice, a copy of which I am also tabling, is that each of the five instruments adopted last July is partially within federal legislative jurisdiction and partially within provincial jurisdiction.
There has been considerable interest in recent months in the possibility of ratifying more I.L.O. conventions the subject matter of which falls wholly or partially within provincial jurisdiction. There has been correspondence with the provinces concerning a number of conventions, and the matter was discussed on January 14 at a federal-provincial conference of ministers of labour.
Of the five instruments adopted at last years' conference of the I.L.O., four concern underground employment in mines. There is a convention plus a supplementary recommendation on minimum age for such employment underground, a recommendation on medical examination of young persons employed underground and a recommendation on conditions of underground employment of young persons in mines.
As many hon. members are no doubt aware, there is no provision in the I.L.O. constitution for the ratification of recommendations, whose purpose is to serve as a guide to member governments as to desirable policy. Conventions on the other hand may be ratified if the legislation and policy in a country corresponds with the requirements of the instrument.
In the case of the conventions relating to young persons in mines, it appears that Canadian legislation and policy for the most
February 23, 1966

part conforms with at least the major provisions of the I.L.O. instruments. Steps will therefore be taken to explore with the provinces whether further action is advisable to ensure full compliance with the instruments. If this can be achieved, the Canadian government would then be in a position to ratify the two conventions.
The fifth instrument is a recommendation concerning employment of women with family responsibilities. This recommendation is of considerable interest to us in Canada, because of the recent impressive increase in women's participation in the labour force. In the past the employment situation of male workers has provided the benchmark of labour force policies, but in light of the changing composition of the labour force there is increasingly urgent need to develop policies and services, which will assist women with family responsibilities to fulfil their dual role and at the same time safeguard their rights and status in employment.
The I.L.O. recommendation provides a useful guide for the development and adaptation of policies and services appropriate to their changing circumstances. It will be widely distributed among provincial and other authorities having responsibilities in this area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: By leave of the house I should like to table copies in French and in English of a number of international agreements recently entered into by the government of Canada.
I should also like to table copies in French and English of the report of the third commonwealth education conference held in 1964.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, if I can be given unanimous consent of the house I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Laflamme, that the first report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs presented yesterday, Tuesday, February 22, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: No, not before it is read.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
J. RENfi HOTTE, REAL ESTATE AGENT.

Mr. Orlikowr: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


BRANCHES ABROAD OF CANADIAN TEXTILE COMPANIES
Mr. Allard: Have any Canadian textile companies set up branches in other countries or invested capital abroad for the purpose of building textile factories and, if so, (a) what are the names of these Canadian companies (b) what are their names abroad, (c) in what foreign countries have these factories been built, (d) does the government of Canada permit these factories to export textile products to Canada and, if so, in what proportion of their production (e) what kinds of material have been exported to Canada by these factories abroad for each year since 1960 and what are the amounts of these exports?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No information concerning foreign subsidiaries or branches of Canadian companies is available.


COST OF PROVIDING COLOUR TELEVISION
Mr. Ormiston: What is the estimated cost to the C.B.C. of putting colour production and transmission facilities in place to provide for limited network programming and for full network programming (English network), assuming the 1965 proportions of network programs originating from Toronto and from regional production centres are maintained?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A.	The estimated capital cost of C.B.C. colour production and transmission facilities to provide limited network colour programming in both languages is expected to be $15,000,000 by the beginning of 1967.

February 23, 1966
Questions
B.	The estimated share of capital costs for full colour programming English network only, is of the order of $30,000,000. This is a planning figure only extended to 1971-72. It is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary estimate because most capital colour facilities will be shared by C.B.C.'s national, regional and local program services and by English and French services at some locations. The C.B.C. has not been authorized to enter colour to the foregoing extent but colour requirements have necessarily been estimated in all plans for consolidation and replacement of equipment. The English network's share of these proposals and of the $15,000,000 in A is included in the estimate.


PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Caouette: 1.	As of March 31, 1963, and March 31, 1965, how many persons were in the public service of Canada under the civil service?
2.	As of March 31, 1963, and March 31, 1965, what was the total amount of salaries paid to persons belonging to the public service of Canada and coming under the civil service?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Salaried employment in departments and departmental corporations of the government of Canada totalled 162,715 at March 31, 1963 and 164,554 at March 31, 1965.
2.	Salaried payroll in departments and departmental corporations of the government of Canada totalled $61,448,000 for the month of March 1963 and $67,297,000 for the month of March 1965.
Civil Service employment under the Civil Service Act is not available for March 31, 1963. However, such employment at September 30, 1963, totalled 136,140 and at March 31, 1965, the total of such employment was 137,740. No associated payroll data are available.


CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Laprise: 1.	At the end of the year 1965, how many civil servants were in the employ of the federal government in (a) Canada, and (b) abroad?
2.	How much did the government spend in 1965 for the services of these civil servants in (a) Canada, and (b) abroad?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. At October 31, 1965, salaried employment in departments and departmental corporations of the government of Canada numbered (a) 164,129 in Canada and (b) 3,199 abroad.
[Miss LaMarsh.l
2.	The payroll of these government employees amounted to (a) $70,751,000 for those employed in Canada and (b) $1,320,000 for those employed abroad.
Civil Service employment under the Civil Service Act is not available at October 31, 1965. However, at September 30, 1965, the numbers employed were (a) 138,280 in Canada and (b) 1,350 abroad. No associated payroll data are available.


COMPARISON OF IMPRISONMENT RATES
Mr. Hopkins: How does the rate of imprisonment in Canada compare with that prevailing in other Western countries?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Comparable statistics are not available to permit a valid comparison between Canada and other western countries.


BENEFITS TO CANADIAN MEMBERS OF UN FORCES
Mr. Groos: 1.	What special pay or extra benefits are granted to members of the Canadian armed forces for service overseas with the United Nations forces?
2.	Are members of the armed forces of Canada who have served with the United Nations forces overseas entitled to benefits under the Veterans Land Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs as follows:
1.	Members of the Canadian armed forces do not receive special pay for service overseas with the United Nations. Special allowances are, however, payable for such service, apart from normal rates of pay and allowances, as follows:
A.	I. United Nations military observer group-India Pakistan (UNMOGIP). II. United Nations India Pakistan observer mission (UNIPOM). Allowances for both U.N. operations are as follows: (a) Foreign allowance-pursuant to the Queen's regulations and orders-ranging from $9.00 per month for a private to $37.50 per month for a colonel, (b) United Nations living allowance-All ranks-$14 per diem if posted to New Delhi, Srinigar, Rawalpindi, Karachi or Lahore. $11 per diem if posted to any other location, (c) Clothing allowance-paid by the United Nations' paymaster in accordance with the United Nations Sealed Administrative Handbook for field operations. UNMOGIP-$200-
February 23, 1966

half of which is payable on arrival and half on completion of six months tour. UNIPOM -$50-payable on arrival and adjustments to be determined depending on the future of the mission.
B.	United Nations truce supervision organization in Palestine (UNTSO). (a) Foreign allowance-as for Ila above, (b) United Nations living allowance-All ranks-$10 per diem.
C.	United Nations emergency force-Middle East (UNEF). (a) Foreign allowance-as for Ila above, (b) Special supplementary allowance-All ranks $39 per month, (c) A special United Nations allowance-All ranks-(i) Gaza/Sharm El Sheikh-920 per diem; (ii) Cairo/Port Said-$2.24 per diem; (iii) Beirut -$2.60 per diem.
D.	Canadian contingent-United Nations Cyprus (a) Foreign allowance-as per Ila above; (b) Special allowance-All ranks-$69 per month.
E.	Military armament commission-Korea (a) Foreign allowance-as per II above, (b) Representation allowance-$800 per year.
2.	Members of the armed forces of Canada who served as part of the United Nations forces to restore peace in the Republic of Korea are eligible to apply for the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act provided they served in a theatre of operations on the strength of the special force prior to July 27, 1953 and were, or were deemed to be, honourably discharged on or before October 31,	1953.
In addition, those persons who enrolled in the special force and did not serve in a theatre of operations are eligible to apply for the benefits of the Act if they are in reciept of a pension under the Pension Act in respect of such special force service. No other members of the armed forces of Canada became eligible to apply for benefits under the act by virtue of service in any other operation undertaken by the United Nations.


TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF PENITENTIARY INMATES
Mr. Brown: By institutions, how many inmates during 1965 prior to end of sentence have been granted temporary absence pursuant to the provisions of section 26(a) of the Penitentiary Act?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Atlantic provinces: Dorchester penitentiary,
Questions
including farm annex, 14; Blue Mountain correctional institution, 15; Springhill minimum security institution, 11. Quebec: St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, including industrial and farm annexes, 24; Leclerc institution, 24; Valleyfield institution, 31; Gatineau correctional camp 7; Federal training centre, 43. Ontario: Kingston penitentiary, 12; Prison for women, 13; Collin's Bay penitentiary, including farm annex, 5; Landry Crossing correctional camp, 1; Beaver Creek correctional camp, 6; Joyceville institution, including farm annex, 7. Manitoba: Manitoba penitentiary including farm annex, 30. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan penitentiary, including farm annex, 42. British Columbia: British Columbia penitentiary, 67; Agassiz correctional camp, 21; William Head institution, 7; Mountain prison (Doukhobors), 6. Total, 386.


EXPORTS OF SALMON EGGS TO JAPAN
Mr. Howard: 1.	Does the government have any knowledge as to whether or not salmon eggs are being shipped or exported to Japan, and if so, for each month during which such shipping or exporting has taken place within the past two years, what has been the volume thereof?
2.	What are the names and addresses of each person, organization or company, which has so shipped or exported salmon eggs and under what authority was this done?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): 1. Pacific salmon eggs are available in three forms, i.e., live salmon eggs, salmon roe or caviar and salmon roe for use as bait. Exports of salmon eggs or roe are not listed specifically in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' returns, but are included under classification number 4940-fish roe, fresh, frozen or cured. The largest percentage of exports under this classification are salmon roe. Such shipments to Japan during the calendar years 1963 and 1964 and the latest available returns, January-November 1965, are listed in the attachment. No export permits are required for the export of salmon eggs in the salmon roe or bait forms. Shipments of live salmon eggs for transplanting or scientific purposes are subject to license by the Minister of Fisheries. I am informed that no such shipments were made to Japan during the past three years.
2.	Listing of the names and addresses of exporters of salmon roe would be in violation of the secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act.

February 23, 1966
Questions
Canadian Exports of Fish Roe (N.E.S. fresh, frozen, cured) to Japan
Classification No. 4940
Month	1963	1964	11 Months 1965	Quantity cwt.	Value $	Quantity cwt.	Value $	Quantity cwt.	Value SJanuary	.... 8	396	27	4,200	64	3,866February	
-	-	-	-	-	-March	-	-	-	107	6,977April	. . . . -	-	-	-	-May	-	-	-	-June	.... 1	420	-	-	-	-July	.... 81	6,692	115	11,457	67	9,800August	.... 114	9,140	916	91,324	1,598	162,467September	.... 1,414	132,109	790	73,947	2,109	202,658October	.... 1,507	144,126	1,861	184,298	1,015	104,848November	.... 1,045	100,330	1,460	132,917	1,451	143,676December	.... 254	23,805	514	41,035	(not available)	T otal	.... 4,424	417,018	5,683	539,178	6,411	634,292
Source: D.B.S. Export Statistics.


VACATION PROVISIONS, POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. Douglas: 1.	To how many weeks of annual vacation are the employees of the Polymer Corporation entitled?
2.	Did all employees receive the full annual vacation to which they were entitled in 1965?
3.	If not, how many employees did not receive their full annual vacation?
4.	If not, what were the reasons why such employees did not receive their full annual vacation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Polymer Corporation Limited reports:
1.	Wage employees of Polymer Corporation are entitled to two weeks vacation after one year of service, three weeks after ten years of service and four weeks after 20 years of service. Salaried employees are entitled to two weeks vacation after one year of service, three weeks after five years of service, four weeks after 15 years of service and five weeks after 25 years of service.
2.	All but 21 employees of the company received the full annual vacation to which they were entitled in 1965.
3.	Twenty-one as indicated above in part 2.
4.	The remainder of the vacation periods for the 21 employees were set over into 1966 by mutual agreement because of sickness or their involvement in special assignments or projects.


MILITARY MISSION TO NIGERIA
Mr. Winkler: 1.	What are the names of the countries to which Canada has dispatched military advisory missions?
2.	If Nigeria is included in these countries (a) when was the mission sent (b) who requested it (c) what was the strength of the mission (d) what is the nature of the equipment it uses (e) what is the per diem cost of the Canadian mission (f) does Canada pay this entire cost (g) is the mission still in Nigeria (h) is the mission advising the present regime (i) has any other Commonwealth country sent a military mission to Nigeria?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada has dispatched Canadian forces teams to Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania. The functions of these teams are training and, in the case of Tanzania only, the provision of advice concerning defence organization.
2.	(a) In June and July 1964; (b) the Nigerian government; (c) two officers of the Royal Canadian Navy; (d) Nigerian supplied equipment for tuition in navigation, hydrography and electronics; (e) costs of normal pay and allowances for both these officers, which are borne by Canada, amount to a total of about $16,500 per year; (f) all other costs, including allowances for foreign service normally paid to members of the Canadian forces, are borne by the Nigerian government. The total cost to the Nigerian government of
February 23. 1966

these payments is not precisely known; (g) yes; (h) no. It has training functions only; (i) other Commonwealth countries have members of their services associated with the Nigerian forces in various capacities.


GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT IN SERVICE JANUARY 21, 22 AND 24
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Madill: 1.	How many aircraft owned by the Government of Canada were in use on trips (a) on Friday, January 21, 1966, after 3.00 p.m., and (b) on January 22 and January 24?
2.	Which aircraft were so in use?
3.	What trips were made by each, and who were the passengers on each trip?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. On the assumption that the question refers to aircraft in the executive flight and not all aircraft *owned by the government the answer is 3.
2.	Viscount CF-TGP, Viscount CF-DTA, Viscount CF-GXK.
3.	On January 21, Viscount CF-TGP, flew from Ottawa to Montreal to carry Hon. Guy Favreau, President of the Privy Council and Hon. J. Marchand, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As is not unusual when ministers are using such aircraft several members of parliament were also passengers as well as two members of the press, one member of the minister's staff and an official of the Department of Transport.
On January 21, Viscount aircraft CF-DTA flew from Ottawa to Winnipeg and return to carry Hon. Roger Teillet, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission and certain members of the minister's staff. A member of parliament was also a passenger.
On January 21, Viscount CF-GXK flew from Ottawa to carry Hon. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs to Windsor and Hon. Judy LaMarsh, Secretary of State, to Toronto. Certain members of the ministers' staffs were passengers as well as a number of officials of the centennial and several members of parliament.
On January 24, Viscount CF-DTA flew from Ottawa to Toronto to carry Hon. Allan MacEachen, Minister of National Health and Welfare and Hon. Robert Winters, Minister of Trade and Commerce and members of their staffs. Two members of parliament were also passengers on this flight.
I suggest to hon. members, please fasten your seat belts.
Questions


C.B.C. EMPLOYEE STATUS
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many C.B.C. employees are engaged in writing news copy and, of these, how many are women?
2.	How many are employed as announcers and, of these, how many are women?
3.	How many are employed as commentators In the farms and fisheries program and, of these, how many are women?
4.	How many are employed as operators in studios (radio) and, of these, how many are women?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	There are 167 C.B.C. employees engaged in writing news copy; of these seven are women.
2.	There are 205 people employed as C.B.C. announcers; of these eight are women.
3.	There are 23 C.B.C. farms and fisheries commentators, all of whom are men.
4.	There are 234 radio operators, all of whom are men.


COLOMBO PLAN EXPENDITURES
Mr. Laprise: How much has the government spent each year in order to help the member countries of the Colombo plan (a) in economic aid, and (b) in technical aid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Parliamentary appropriations for member countries of the Colombo Plan under various forms of development assistance have been as follows-
Funds Used For
Funds	Capital	TechnicalYear	Appropriated Assistance	Assistance1950-51	400,000	-	400,0001951-52	25,400,000	25,000,000	400,0001952-53	25,400,000	25,000,000	400,0001953-54	30,400,000	30,000,000	400,0001954-55	25,400,000	24,750,000	650,0001955-56	26,400,000	25,500,000	900,0001956-57	35,876,000	34,506,000	1,370,0001957-58	36,400,000	35,005,000	1,395,0001958-59	48,000,000	46,635,000	1,365,0001959-60	63,500,000	61,782,000	1,718,0001960-61	50,000,000	48,350,000	1,650,0001961-62	50,000,000	48,220,000	1,780,0001962-63	41,500,000	39,190,000	2,310,0001963-64	41,500,000	37,925,000	3,075,0001964-65	63.500,000	59,935,000	3,565,0001965-66	63,350,000	60,930,000	4,420,000Total	$618,026,000	
16G0

February 23, 1965
Questions
Export Credits Insurance Corporation In addition funds have been allocated to member countries of the Colombio Plan for development purposes under Section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act as follows-
1961- 62	$ 20,000,000
1962-	63	20,000,0001963-	64	30,800,0001964-	65	33,500,0001965-	66	12,500,000Total	$116,800,000


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, METEGHAN, N.S.
Mr. Bower: 1.	Has any petition been received for the construction of a wharf at Meteghan, district of Clare, Digby county. Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, have any surveys for this work been planned or made?
3.	What was the decision as a result of the survey?
4.	What is the estimated cost of construction of the wharf?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The department is presently constructing facilities for the fishery of this area at Saul-nierville; consequently, to assure that any additional work undertaken would be of a kind most suitable to the local industry it would seem best to consider particular requests from nearby places when the impact of the Saulnierville development can be fully assessed.
4.	It is not customary to reveal estimated costs.


SALARIES AND WAGES, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Godin: What amounts did the Post Office Department spend, during the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 on (a) salaries and wages (b) professional and special services?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Fiscal year ended March 31st
1963
1965
(a)
Salaries and Wages $
139,775,001.11
143,293,772.28
163,422,905.54
162,140,191.99
(b)
Professional and Special Services $
33,028.89
69,432.82
125,776.76
151,952.90

The figures for salaries and wages include both payments from appropriations and salaries paid from postal revenue and also night differential allowance.


TIGHT MONEY POLICY
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Within the last twelve months, has the government, or the Bank of Canada as fiscal agent and with the knowledge of the government, taken any action or initiated any policy having or intended to have the effect of tightening the money supply in Canada?
2.	Has the government any information to indicate that Canadian chartered banks are refusing loans to traditional customers?
3.	If so, was this action the intended and logical consequence of the policy and action referred to in part 1?
4.	If the answer to part 1 is in the affirmative, will the government give consideration to arranging or discussing with the Bank of Canada an exemption from such policy for the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The rate of change in the money supply (i.e. in the total of currency outside banks and chartered bank deposits) within the last twelve months has varied in accordance with the circumstances and the increase in the year ending January, 1966, has been $1,915,000,000 or 10.7 per cent.
2.	While the government has no direct information on this subject, the demand for borrowed funds arising from the strong economic growth which has been taking place has been so intense that it is likely that some bank borrowers have been unable to secure as large loans as they would have liked. The chartered banks have tried to meet the normal borrowing needs of their traditional customers, particularly their smaller customers, and total chartered bank loans have increased by $1,690,000,000 or by 17.7 per cent during the year ending January, 1966.
3.	Answered by 1 and 2.
4.	Answered by 1.


DEATH OF DOUGLAS TURNER IN VIET NAM
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What was the purpose of the flight in Viet Nam which resulted in the apparent death of Douglas Turner, an officer of the Department of External Affairs?
2.	Upon what type of aircraft was the flight made?
3.	How old was the aircraft?
4.	What inspection and maintenance procedures were followed to ensure the safety and reliability of the aircraft and by whom were they carried out?
5.	What steps have been taken to find the aircraft and its passengers?
February 23, 1966

6.	Can it be assumed that Mr. Turner is dead or is there a possibility that he is a prisoner of the Viet Cong?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. The flight of the courier aircraft of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet Nam, F-BELV, from Saigon to Hanoi, via Phnom Penh and Vientiane, was a routine authorized flight in accordance with the contract of the international commission in Viet Nam with the Compagnie Internationale des Transports Civil Aeriens, the owners of the aircraft.
2.	Boeing "Stratoliner".
3.	The exact date of manufacture is unavailable; the manufacturer says all aircraft of this type were built in 1939 and 1940.
4.	Normal inspection and maintenance procedures were followed by the Compagnie Internationale des Transports Civil Aeriens, which held a certificate of air worthiness for the aircraft.
5.	The International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos, in co-operation with the Laotian authorities and the Compagnie Internationale des Transports Civil Aeriens, carried out an intensive aerial search along the flight route and in the adjoining area up to the international border of North Viet Nam from October 19 to November 20, 1965. The North Vietnamese authorities also informed the commission that they had searched for the missing aircraft along the air corridor in North Vietnamese territory. These efforts failed to reveal the fate of the missing aircraft.
6.	The report of the ad hoc committee established by the international commission in Viet Nam, and including a Canadian representative, to inquire into the disappearance of the aircraft concludes that the aircraft "met with an accident after it left Vientiane airport at 15.05 hours on 18 October, 1965 and that all the passengers on board aircraft F-BELV are dead". This conclusion was accepted by a unanimous vote of the commission on January 20, 1966.



TENDERS FOR NAVAL SUPPLY SHIPS

['Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes.\nThe answer to the second part is as follows. The principal substance of the letter from Mr. Buckler comprised a number of specific points concerning pension provisions affecting public servants of other countries, the management of the public service superannuation fund, the relationship between the superannuation scheme and the Canada Pension Plan and between the funds associated with those plans, and my reply was intended to provide clarification on these matters.']
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Tenders for the two operational support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy will be called in March 1966.
Questions
2.	Tenders will be invited on a national basis in accordance with the shipbuilding procurement policy announced by the government on July 19, 1965.



Mr. Hales: 1.	How many firms have located and are receiving benefits in designated areas in Canada?
2.	How many are new industries?
3.	How many were established industries, but moved to the designated area in order to receive the benefits?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The area development agency has been informed of 266 projects which when completed would appear to qualify for benefits under the area development program. These represent projects which are in various stages of completion in order to qualify for either the income tax exemption or the development grant.
2.	Twenty projects are expansions of existing businesses and the remainder involve the establishment of new manufacturing or processing businesses.
3.	Ten projects involve facilities which had been established elsewhere in Canada, and are being re-established in designated areas. In all cases, the re-established facilities must have new and unused machinery and equipment in order to qualify for the benefits. In most cases the re-established facilities represent a significant expansion of employment and production capacity.


GRANTS UNDER AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many grants have been made under the Area Development Incentive Act since June 30, 1965?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the firms receiving these grants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 and 2. No payments of grants have yet been made under the Area Development Incentives Act of June 30, 1965.


IMPROVED C.B.C. TELEVISION SERVICE, MANITOBA
Mr. Siefanson: What plans has the C.B.C. for providing television service for the residents of Grand Rapids and Norway House, Manitoba, and adjacent areas?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The corporation does not have any immediate plans for providing television service

February 23, 1966
Questions
to the Grand Rapids and Norway House areas of Manitoba. Any future plans for extension and maintenance of service to these and other geographically remote areas would depend largely upon available financial resources at the time. For the present, the C.B.C. has found it essential to give priority to similar coverage needs which can be met at substantially lower cost.


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION, FISHER BRANCH, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Has the C.B.C. purchased land for the proposed television rebroadcasting station at Fisher Branch, Manitoba and, if so, from whom and at what price?
2.	What is the estimated total cost for this television rebroadcasting station?
3.	What is the estimated area that will receive good reception?
4.	When does the C.B.C. expect this station to go into operation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes, from Mr. R. B. Barrett of Fisher Branch, Manitoba, for the amount of $4,407.
2.	$306,000. This figure includes land, building, equipment, tower, engineering, contingency and provides for future conversion to colour transmission.
3.	The "B" contour of the proposed station, which is the accepted limit for adequate coverage, extends north from Fisher Branch, approximately 45 miles, south 32 miles, east 41 miles and west 44 miles. Generally speaking, fringe reception can be attained for some miles beyond the "B" contour with a suitable antenna.
4.	It is expected that the station will go into operation late in August or early September 1966.


ACCURATE PRINTING SERVICES, OTTAWA
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Did Accurate Printing Services of Ottawa print any lists of electors for the 1965 General Election and, if so, for what electoral district?
2.	Who is the president, manager, or principal officer of said company?
3.	How many polling division lists did this firm print for each such electoral district?
4.	What was the total amount paid to this firm in respect of each such electoral district?
5.	Who, if anyone recommended this firm to the returning officer of each such electoral district?
6.	Where are the premises of this firm located?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows:
1.	Yes, for the electoral district of Carle-ton.

2.	No information.
3.	Accurate Printing Services printed lists of electors for 125 polling divisions.
4.	$5,848.35.
5.	No information. Pursuant to subsection (5) of section 17 of the Canada Elections Act, the returning officer for each electoral district is responsible for the printing of lists of electors.
6.	According to the heading on the account submitted, Accurate Printing Services is located at 12 Kelvin Crescent, Ottawa.


PARKING FACILITIES, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Caouelte: Does the government intend to build a larger parking area on Parliament Hill in the near future in order to meet the ever growing demands for parking facilities and, if so, when?


George James McIlraith: The Government has not planned to extend the surface parking areas on Parliament Hill. A parking garage beside Parliament Hill is planned with the intention to start construction in the Winter of 1967-68.


PENSIONS FOR TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS
Mr. Laprise: Does the government intend to modify the Disabled Persons Act, so as to enable a disabled person in a sanatorium for T.B. patients to receive a pension?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As this is a matter of Government policy any announcement will be made by the Government at the appropriate time.


P.F.R.A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	How often has the P.F.R.A. advisory committee met since April 8, 1963, and where were meetings held?
2.	Who are the members of this committee?
3.	What further meetings are now planned?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The P.F.R.A. advisory committee last met on December 6 and 7, 1962.
2.	Mr. Norman Roebuck, 63 Haultain Street, Yorkton, Saskatchewan; Mr. Roy Clark, 117- 20th Street, Brandon, Manitoba; Mr. Fred Croy, Stonewall, Manitoba; Mr. Harry Shearer, Elm Creek, Manitoba; Mr. James Cameron, Youngstown, Alberta; Mr. Arnold
February 23, 1966

F.	Christie, Grand Prairie, Alberta; Mr. Boyd Anderson, Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan; Mr. W. H. Hollier, 1618-100th Street, North Bat-tleford, Saskatchewan; Mr. Ed. Wright, East-end, Saskatchewan; Mr. H. J. Collison, Star City, Saskatchewan.
3.	At the present time there are no definite plans tor the holding of meetings.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, QUEENS COUNTY, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What are the commencement and completion dates of construction of post offices at York and Breadalbane, P.E.I.?
2.	What is the area of land acquired as the site for each of the foregoing?
3.	From whom was it acquired?
4.	What other post office buildings are in contemplation or under construction in Queens county, P.E.I.?


George James McIlraith: 1. York-Commenced 30-12-65, expected completion date 30-4-66. Breadalbane- Commenced 30-12-65, expected completion date 31-5-66.
2. York-22,500	sq . ft.	Breadalbane-
14,700 sq. ft.
3.	York-Mr. Peter W. Proud. Breadalbane -Mr. Pomeroy Murray.
4.	Nil.


FEDERAL BUILDING, RIVERPORT, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has any study or survey been made during the past year by or on behalf of the Department of Public Works indicating the need for constructing a federal public building at Riverport, Lunenburg county, N.S.?
2.	If so (a) what is the area of land to be acquired for this building (b) where will it be located in Riverport (c) will the building be large enough to provide accommodation for a customs officer (d) will the building be large enough to provide accommodation for a fresh fish inspection officer (e) what area of the building will be allocated to the Post Office Department (f) what is the estimated cost of this building (g) has the department called for tenders on the building's construction and, if so, what is the closing date?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2. (a) 11,250 square feet, (b) On the public highway, (c) Yes. (d) Yes. (e) 545 square feet, (f) $24,975. (See g) (g) Yes. The closing date was February 9, 1966.


INCREASES IN WHARFAGE CHARGES
Mr. Keays: 1.	Were there any increases in wharfage charges put into effect since 1962?
Questions
2.	Were there any other charges imposed on the users of public wharves since 1962?
3.	Were these charges uniform across the country?
4.	Were any of these charges rescinded and, if so, where and in what amounts?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The wharfage charges on automobiles and trucks driven on or off a ferry vessel were rescinded for all wharves without having been assessed by order in council P.C. 1964-460 of March 26, 1964.


CENTRAL HEATING PLANT, OTTAWA
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the central heating plant in Ottawa for government buildings been converted from coal burning facilities to natural gas?
2.	If so, when was this operation carried out and at what cost?
3.	What was the annual average consumption of coal in that plant during the last 10 years?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes. Converted to gas with oil as stand-by.
2.	Contract awarded June 18, 1965. Work under way. Expected completion date March 31, 1966. Cost, $404,016.
3.	18,383 tons.


SURPLUS PAYMENTS BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Under section 81 (3) of the Financial Administration Act, has the Minister of Finance ordered the crown corporations to pay the amount which he considered as surplus over the requirements, during the last three years?
2.	What corporations were required to do so?
3.	During the last three years, what amount from each corporation was paid to the Receiver General under the said section?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The amounts paid by the various crown companies to the government in interest, dividends, repayment of loans, and in other respects, together with the sums kept by them on deposit in the consolidated revenue fund, have made it unnecessary for the Minister of Finance to order crown corporations to pay any amounts to the crown under the section of the act referred to. Details of the payments made and deposits maintained are shown in the public accounts and the annual reports of the corporations.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
Questions

February 23, 1966


SAND BAR, THAMES RIVER
Mr. Danforlh: Has the Department of Public Works, from the report submitted by engineers regarding the sand bar at the mouth of the Thames river, come to the conclusion (a) that the sand bar does not present a hazard to the passage either in or out of the Thames river by a small craft used for fishing (b) that the sand bar in the mouth of the Thames river is not of such a nature as to cause an ice jam which would be responsible for the flooding of lands adjacent to the Thames river as was experienced in 1965?


George James McIlraith: (a) Yes.
(b) The report of the Department of Public Works does not cover the problem of flood control as it is not generally the responsibility of the federal government.


USE OF ICEBREAKER, THAMES RIVER MOUTH
Mr. Danforlh: 1.	Have representations been made to the Department of Transport by either the officials of the township of Dover, Kent county, Ontario, or representatives of the lower Thames conservation authority regarding the use of a Department of Transport vessel for icebreaking in Lake St. Clair in the vicinity of the mouth of the Thames river with a view of preventing an ice jam and flooding of valuable property by the Thames river as occurred in 1965?
2.	Has the Department of Transport a vessel that could be used for such purposes now operating in Lake St. Clair or the Detroit river?
3.	Has the Department of Transport made any plans or taken any action toward complying with representations made to the department on behalf of the conservation authority and submitted by the secretary treasurer, Mr. R. G. Gagner?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. An inquiry was received on 11th January from Mr. R. G. Gagner, secretary treasurer of the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, regarding the possibility of the department providing help in the eastern part of lake St. Clair for the spring ice breaking in the Thames river.
2.	The nearest Canadian coast guard vessel is wintering at Amherstburg, but is a small tender for aids to navigation that is quite unable to operate in ice of the thickness found in lake St. Clair.
3.	There is no other vessel that the Department of Transport can send to this area as its only full icebreaker in the lakes is the Alexander Henry, which has too deep draft to operate safely in eastern lake St. Clair.


MONTREAL-THEFTS OF IMPORTED GOODS
Mr. Danforlh: X. Has there been an increase in the theft from shipments of imported goods landed in the Montreal harbour?
2.	What is the value either calculated or estimated of the claims by importers in regard to stolen goods in the port of Montreal for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	How does the theft of goods per tonnage imported at Montreal compare with the other major ocean ports of Canada?
4.	Are the thefts of such a degree that extra measures of protection and apprehension should be considered?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National
Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	No statistics available.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	General statements made on pilferage in Canadian harbours and specific cases uncovered by the National Harbours Board have led the board to take increasing measures for security.


EFFECT ON CANADA OF U.S. MONETARY POLICY
Mr. Allard: Is a study being undertaken at the present time, on behalf of the government, on the repercussions in Canada of the new United States monetary policy, and, if so, when will the government be able to submit a report in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: The repercussions in Canada of monetary, financial and economic developments in the United States and other major foreign countries are under continuous study and appraisal at all times by the appropriate authorities in the Canadian government. No special report is contemplated in this regard.


DEMURRAGE PAYMENTS BY WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	Are storage payments being made by the Canadian Wheat Board on grain in transit between the country elevator and the terminal?
2.	Is the Canadian Wheat Board paying demurrage on box cars sitting on sidings loaded with grain?
3.	Is the Canadian Wheat Board paying demurrage on ships waiting in ports to be loaded?
4.	How much demurrage was paid by the Canadian Wheat Board in the last year in regard to both ships and railways?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
February 23, 1966

2.	No.
3.	In cases where the board is unable to deliver under the terms of its sales contracts.
4.	It is not the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to divulge information in respect of its sales contracts for the current crop year.


DOMICILIARY CARE PATIENTS IN D.V.A. HOSPITALS
Mr. Harley: What percentage of the total of the patients in the various D.V.A. hospitals across Canada have been hospitalized and considered to be "domiciliary [DOT]care" cases for the years 1964 and 1965?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In 1964, domiciliary care cases constituted 41.4 per cent of the total patients in D.V.A. hospitals. In 1965, they constituted 41.9 per cent.


D.V.A. HOSPITAL PATIENTS NOT REQUIRING ACTIVE TREATMENT
Mr. Harley: What proportion of patients in D.V.A. hospitals at the present time could be treated in other than active-treatment hospitals?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Of all the patients in D.V.A. hospitals at mid December, 1965, the most recent date for which statistics are available, 57.2 per cent could have been tretaed in other than active treatment hospitals.


TOLL INCREASE, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Macaluso: Is it the intention of the government to request the government of the United States to agree to an increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway from 40 cents to 45 cents per net ton on bulk cargo and from 90 cents to $1.00 per net ton on general cargo?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The June 30, 1964, international agreement requires that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation shall report to their respective governments as to the sufficiency of the authorized tolls, not later than July 1, 1966.
The Authority is reviewing these tolls with the Corporation at the present time, after which it will report to the government.
Questions


PAYMENTS BY EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	What amount has been paid by the Emergency Measures Organization to the various provinces during the fiscal year 1964-1965?
2.	What individual amounts have been paid by
E.M.O. to the counties and cities in Ontario during the fiscal year 1964-1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Under grants to provinces and municipalities for civil defence and related purposes, a total of $4,927,236 was paid by the Canada Emergency Measures Organization to provinces as follows: Yukon, $147; Nfld., $47,651; P.E.I., $16,687; N.S., $218,021; N.B., $135,112; Que., $1,469,185; Ont., $1,556,228; Man., $222,825; Sask., $167,055; Alta., $517,599; B.C., $576,726.
2. Under civil defence financial assistance program, no individual amounts were paid to counties and municipalities by the Canada Emergency Measures Organization; however, included in the payment of $1,556,228 to Ontario, an amount of $1,180,942 was included for distribution by the province to its counties and municipalities.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, LAKE WINNIPEG
Mr. Stefanson: Was a survey carried out on lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, from 1957 to 1962 by the Canadian hydrographic service, and if so (a) will this survey be re-established (b) when will work commence, and (c) what is the expected completion date?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Yes. (a) The service plans to re-establish the lake Winnipeg survey in 1967 if there are sufficient trained survey staff available, (b) Answered by (a), (c) It is estimated that, by the use of modern techniques, the completion of the survey of the lake will require at least four seasons' work.


CHEESE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, CANADA-U.S.
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What (a) quantity (b) dollar value, of cheese was imported into Canada from the United States in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What (a) quantity (b) dollar value, of cheese was exported to the United States in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	Is there an import quota on Canadian cheese imposed by the United States?
4.	If so, what is its nature?

February 23, 196$
Questions
5.	When was it first imposed and what variations in it have there been, specifying dates and nature of such variations?
6.	What negotiations have been undertaken by the government of Canada with the government of the United States since April 23, 1963 related to these quotas, and with what result?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The (a) quantity (b) dollar value, of cheese imported into Canada from the United States in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964, and January to September 1965 (latest figures available) was:
	(a)	(b)
	Quantity	Value
	Cwt.	$'000
1962	17,180	1,1431963	15,928	9811964	19,938	1,221Jan.-Sept. 1965	18,338	1,136
2. The (a) quantity (b) dollar value, of cheese exported to the United States in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964, and January to November 1965 (latest figures available) was:
	(a)	(b)
	Quantity	Value
	Cwt.	$'000
1962	5,662	3121963	5,842	3331964	7,312	396Jan.-Nov.	1965	5,453	273Imports of	Canadian cheddar che	
into the United States are subject to quota restrictions.
4.	The United States has an annual global import quota for cheddar cheese amounting to 2,780,000 pounds. Canadian participation in this quota is approximately 614,000 pounds at the present time.
5.	The present quota restrictions were imposed in 1953 under Section 22 of the United States Agricultural Adjustment Act. Up until 1964, Canadian participation was approximately 514,000 pounds. However, during that year, through a revision of import licensing procedure, Canadian participation was increased to about 614,000 pounds.
6.	Formal representations have been made to the United States on several occasions, the latest in September 1964. We have continued to press the matter in the GATT and within meetings of the U.S.-Canada joint committee on trade and economic affairs, as well as through our embassy in Washington.

The increased Canadian participation referred to in No. 5 is largely a result of these representations.


CERTIFICATES BY INDUSTRY MINISTER UNDER INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton: South):
1.	How many certificates have been issued by
the Minister of Industry under the provisions of section 71 (a)	(6) of the Income Tax Act?
2.	What is the name of each company to whom a certificate has been issued?
3.	What is the nature of the new manufacturing or processing business being carried on by each such company, and what is the description of the designated area in which each such manufacturing or processing business is being carried on?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Seventy-one certificates establishing the date of commencement of commercial production of new businesses in designated areas have been issued. Four of these businesses have now been in commercial production for a minimum of one year and have been issued certificates granting exemption from income tax for one year under section 71(a)(6) of the Income Tax Act.
2 and 3. The names of the four companies and the nature and locations of the businesses are: (a) J. J. C. Electric (Canada) Limited Manufacture of control panels for automated equipment Windsor designated area; (b) Daal Specialties Limited Manufacture of automotive accessories Windsor designated area; (c) Compo Records (Ontario) Limited Stamping of phonograph records Cornwall designated area; (d) Massey-Ferguson Brantford Limited Assembly of combine harvesters Brantford designated area.


'PAYMENT TO MACLAREN ADVERTISING, TORONTO
Mr. Irvine: Was the amount of $151,510 paid to MacLaren Advertising, Toronto, as set forth in answer to Question No. 49 (2) and printed in Hansard on February 2, 1966, paid as a fee or as a commission?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The details of the $151,510.00 gross fee of the MacLaren Advertising Company Limited are: Fees for services paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare, $7,500; Commission earned from news media, design and production, and distributing agencies, $144,010.
February 23, 1966


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU-DON MATHESON
Mr. Irvine: 1.	In what capacity is Mr. Don Matheson employed in the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	When was he first employed by the bureau?
3.	Was he appointed and, if so, by whom and on what date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. A Mr. Donald Alexander Matheson is employed in the Canadian government printing bureau, in the capacity of a linotype operator.
2.	June 8, 1959.
3.	He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission on June 8, 1959, when a vacancy became available and when his name was reached on the eligible list established as a result of competition 59-574.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU- ED PHILLIPS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	In what capacity is Mr. Ed Phillips employed in the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	When was he first employed by the bureau?
3.	Was he appointed and, if so by whom and on what date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. A Mr. Joseph Arthur Albert Edward Phillips is employed in the Canadian government printing bureau, in the capacity of foreman of the evening shift.
2.	May 17, 1954.
3.	He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission on May 17, 1954, when a vacancy became available and when his name was reached on the eligible list established as a result of competition 53-645.


PRINTING BUREAU TYPESETTING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Irvine: What is the detailed breakdown by which the figure of 57,000 man-hours was arrived at in answer to question No. 69 part 4 subsection (b) ?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: At the time of the feasibility study composition by computer conducted by the Canadian government printing bureau, the staff in the area in question numbered 80. The staff estimates under the proposed process was 52, a xeduction of 28 man years, or 54,600 hours.
Questions
The latter figure was increased and rounded off at 57,000 hours, to include approximately 5 per cent overtime.


BAN ON CANDY-COATED HEADACHE PILLS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-: Kingsway):
1.	To the knowledge of the government, did the Consumers' Association of Canada, in 1965, demand the placing of a ban on the sale of flavored, candy-coated headache pills?
2.	If so, has the government acted to order such a ban?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. No. This matter was referred to the Canadian drug advisory committee. This committee recommended that an ad hoc committee be appointed to study in depth the whole problem of poisonings by acetylsalicylic acid and products containing this drug and to make suitable recommendations in respect thereof. This ad hoc committee has now been appointed to study the matter.


EXCISE TAX ON JEWELLERY
Mr. Hales: 1.	What is the total of the 10 per cent excise tax collected in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 on jewellery products?
2.	Is the government now considering the removal of the excise tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Fiscal Year 1961-62, $5.6 million; 1962-63, $5.8 million; 1963-64, $6.4 million; 1964-65, $6.9 million.
2. Representations that this tax be removed, as well as representations on a wide range of other tax subjects, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.


GRAIN MOVEMENT BY C.N.R. AND C.P.R.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley, have been shipped out of the port of Vancouver in each of the past five years?
2.	How many cars of grain were shipped to the port of Vancouver by (a) C.P.R. (b) C.N.R., in each of the past five years?
3.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley, have been shipped out of the lakehead in each of the past five years?
4.	How many cars of grain were shipped to the lakehead by (a) C.P.R. (b) C.N.R., in each of the past five years?

February 23, 1966
Questions


John James Greene: 1 and 3.


SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY
[Stage Direction]
Crop Year	Wheat	Oats	Barley	Total
(A) VANCOUVER-NEW WESTMINSTER
[Stage Direction]
bushels-
1954-65	
136,388,223	4,481,098	19,860,321	160,729,6421963-64	
154,010,211	13,587,920	28,163,089	195,761,2201962-63	
129,855,832	9,599,751	5,070,687	144,526,2701961-62	
145,745,978	1,504,970	13,071,131	160,322,0791960-61	
119,114,141	967,603	16,987,880	137,069,624(B) FORT WILLIAM-PORT	ARTHUR	1964-65	
277,781,570	43,699,052	47,999,158	369,479,7801963-64	
347,279,824	35,800,620	53,159,279	436,239,7231962-63	
201,818,648	37,752,212	34,842,221	274,413,0811961-62	
180,103,195	18,464,387	40,811,696	239,379,2781960-61	
217,207,658	32,767,389	59,293,666	309,268,713
2 and 4.

[Stage Direction]
C.P.R.	C.N.R.1	Total
(A) VANCOUVER-NEW WESTMINSTER			
1964-65			
Wheat	41,144	29,840	70,984Oats	710	607	1,317Barley	4,812	2,884	7,696Others	4,264	4,978	9,242Total	50,930	38,309	89,2391963-64	Wheat	44,523	36,075	80,598Oats	1,982	2,049	4,031Barley	8,703	4,636	13,339Others	4,138	4,498	8,636Total	59,346	47,258	106,6041962-63	Wheat	37,738	33,292	71,030Oats	1,341	1,579	2,920Barley	1,407	863	2,270Others	3,480	3,859	7,339Total	43,966	39,593	83,5591961-62	Wheat	43,389	35,360	78,749Oats	9	31	40Barley	4,556	1,122	5,678Others	3,868	4,077	7,945Total	51,822	40,590	92,4121960-61	WTheat	36,432	27,824	64,256Oats	59	51	110Barley	6,001	1,282	7,283Others	5,522	3,670	9,192Total	48,014	32,827	80,841

February 23. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	1669
Questions
GRAIN CARLOT UNLOADS, BY RAILWAYS-Concluded
C.P.R.	C.N.R.i	Total
(B) FORT WILLIAM-PORT ARTHUR
Wheat	
80,659	62,345	143,004Oats	
7,260	8,230	15,490Barley	
10,354	11,229	21,583Others	
6,162	3,879	10,041Total	
104,435	85,683	190,118Wheat	
94,424	87,534	181,958Oats	
4,778	6,172	10,950Barley	
9,929	13,454	23,383Others	
5,134	3,997	9,131Total	
114,265	111,157	225,422Wheat	
56,917	46,135	103,052Oats	
6,996	7,970	14,966Barley	
8,087	10,160	18,247Others	
5,224	3,251	8,475Total	
77,224	67,516	144,740Wheat	
54,799	43,360	98,159Oats	
2,576	3,465	6,041Barley	
7,349	10,084	17,433Others	
3,737	2,503	6,240Total	
68,461	59,412	127,873Wheat	
64,579	49,963	114,542Oats	
5,021	7,047	12,068Barley	
13,135	16,106	29,241Others	
4,800	3,919	8,719Total	
87,535	77,035	164,570
'Vancouver C.N.R.-includes cars loaded N.A.R. & P.G.E. lines.
Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, February 21, 1966.

Mr. Slarr: 1.	Are there any cases at present being held by the Department of Justice similar to the case in which a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the legality of the section of the Combines Investigation Act forbidding resale price maintenance?
2.	If so (a) how many and for how long have they been outstanding (b) what action does the minister contemplate with respect to them?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: The answer to question No. 1 is no.
The answer to question No. 2 is as follows:
(a) There are four cases presently before the courts. In one case the trial has been
held and judgment reserved pending the decision on the constitutional issue before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the remaining three cases the trials were postponed for the same reason. In these cases, counsel have been notified of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and instructed to take the necessary steps to bring them to trial. In cases where inquiries are being conducted by the director under the Combines Investigation Act, these have been proceeding in the normal manner.
(b) See 2(a).

February 23. 1366
Questions


APPLICATIONS FOR WINTER HOME CONSTRUCTION BONUS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many applications were received for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction program during the present winter from the commencement date to January 31. 1966?
2.	How many were there during the same period ending (a) January 31, 1965 (b) January 31, 1964?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Applications for certification of housing received numbered 31,194.
2. (a) Applications for certification of housing received numbered 31,881. (b) Applications for certification of housing received numbered 31,942.


LOANS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Pascoe: Is there a proposed program of long-term loans to exhibition companies for multi-purpose buildings for agricultural and community purposes and, if so (a) is the government intending to implement it (b) when will a decision in this regard be made?


John James Greene: This is a matter of government policy. Should a decision be taken to implement such a program, parliament will be informed in the usual manner.


CHURCHILL, MAN., ELEVATOR CAPACITY
Mr. Korchinski: What is the total capacity of the terminal elevators at Churchill?


John James Greene: 5,000,000 bushels.


APPLICATION OF COMBINES LEGISLATION TO NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Does the government consider the field of professional sport to be outside the purview of the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	If not, will the appropriate minister of the government refer to the director of investigation and research under the act, the question of whether the operations of the National Hockey League in Canada, especially with respect to its practices or rules which restrict the right to the extension of franchises to other Canadian cities, and related practices, are in contravention of any of the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?


Guy Favreau: 1. Yes. The director under the Combines Investigation Act takes the position that the field of professional sport is outside the purview of the act.
2. See 1.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU-MONEY LENDERS SYNDICATE
Mr. Irvine: With reference to question No. 330 answered on January 27, 1966, does there exist or has there existed in the past three years a "money lenders syndicate" other than Caisse Populaire and, if so, what are the names of the principals of any such organizations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are a number of Christmas funds organized and operated by several groups of employees of the Canadian government printing bureau to which employees make regular contributions throughout the year. Some of these do provide for loans to its members on request. At the end of the year, total contributions plus any interest earned is divided among the members. There are also a number of flower, gift and welfare funds. However, these types of mutually beneficial organizations are not considered as "money lenders syndicates" since their prime purpose is to encourage savings and also to avoid, in the case of flower and gift funds, the circulation of subscription lists among employees.


C.B.C. TELEVISION PROGRAM ON VIET NAM
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	Did Mr. John Powell and Mr. Hugh Campbell recently appear on a C.B.C. television program concerning Viet Nam?
2.	If so, did either or both serve in Indochina and in what capacity did they serve?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secreiary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Mr. Campbell, then a squadron leader in the R.C.A.F., served from August, 1961 to January, 1963. Mr. Powell served from June, 1964 to June, 1965. (b) Squadron Leader Campbell served chiefly as an officer at various team sites in Viet Nam. Mr. Powell served as a registry and accounts clerk in the Canadian headquarters in Saigon.


REQUEST FOR ESCALATOR CLAUSE IN SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the president of the federal superannuates' national association asking that the Public Service Superannuation Act be amended so as to provide therein an escalator clause similar to that contained in the Canada Pension Plan and in the Old Age Security Act?
2.	If so, what reply has the Prime Minister made thereto?
February 23, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes.
The answer to the second part is as follows. The principal substance of the letter from Mr. Buckler comprised a number of specific points concerning pension provisions affecting public servants of other countries, the management of the public service superannuation fund, the relationship between the superannuation scheme and the Canada Pension Plan and between the funds associated with those plans, and my reply was intended to provide clarification on these matters.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ormislon: 
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the Canadian Government Printing Bureau disposed of any equipment or material to direct purchasers since 1960. and (a) if so, what specific items were sold or disposed of and to what persons, firms or corporations in each instance (b) if any such equipment or material was disposed of, upon what date and for what price was each specific item so disposed of (c) if any such equipment or material was disposed of, were public tenders called, and in each instance was the highest tender or bid accepted (d) were any items of equipment or material sold or otherwise disposed of by the printing bureau directly to Mr. A. R. Gentile (e) if any such items were disposed of to Mr. A. R. Gentile, upon what date and for what price was each specific item so disposed of?
2.	Has the printing bureau disposed of any equipment or material to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation since 1960 and (a) if so, what specific items (b) if any such item was disposed of, upon what date and for what price was each specific item disposed of?
3.	Has any investigation or inquiry been instigated or made by the printing bureau into the circumstances surrounding any dealings or transactions or wrongful conduct?
4.	Is or was Mr. A. R. Gentile an employee of the printing bureau, and (a) if so, when was he hired, what was his salary, and what position did or does he hold (b) if he no longer is an employee of the printing bureau, what was his date of separation and for what reason?
5.	Is Mr. A. R. Gentile in receipt of a pension for service in government employment and, if so, how much?
Motions for Papers
6.	Is or was Mr. A. R. Gentile, or the firm or firms he represents, engaged in providing printing services for the government, or any departments thereof?
?. On what date was Mr. A. R. Gentile's name or that of his firm or firms placed on the list of printers eligible for the request or supply of government printing requirements?
8.	By what firm or firms were the lists of electors for the electoral district of Carleton printed?
9.	If by more than one firm, what number of lists was printed by each firm?
10.	What was the total amount paid to each such firm for such printing?
11.	What person recommended each such firm to the Returning Officer for the electoral district of Carleton to be retained for the printing of such lists?
Return tabled.


Question No. 602-Mr. Neveu:
1.	Is there a federal agency which is engaged in the supervision of large-scale projects, carried out jointly with the provincial government?
2.	Under the Winter Works Program of 1966, what projects have been accepted for Shefford county?
3.	What is the cost of these projects?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 71 is acceptable to the government. I ask that the remaining notices of motions stand.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE-DISCRIMINATORY JOB ORDERS Motion No. 71-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of any directive issued in the past two years by the National Employment Service or the Department of Labour to its staff directing them to refer discriminatory job orders to appropriate government departments and commissions-federal or provincial-for appropriate action in order to carry out the directives included in the legislation which prohibits the National Employment Service from filling discriminatory job orders.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am informed that there were no such directives issued by the National Employment Service or by the department, and a nil return will have to be the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this notice of motion dropped?

February 23, 1966
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is the parliamentary secretary calling motion No. 71?


Albert Béchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the return in this case would have to be a nil return as there have been no such directives. If the hon. member does not wish to withdraw the motion we will have to file such a return.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member
consent to the withdrawal of this motion?


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is stating that the national employment service has not issued any such directives during this period of time to its employees, then I am content to withdraw the motion and discuss the matter when we reach consideration of the appropriate estimates. The minister has given exactly that information I wanted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to allow the motion to be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TRANSFER OF SASKAIR LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any correspondence or documents relating to the transfer of Saskair Limited to Norcanair Limited, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would be agreeable to having this material tabled except for those documents which disclose the financial condition of one of the companies concerned, as that material has always been regarded as confidential.


Mr. Douglas:: That is satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be an order for the production of these documents subject to the reservations and limitation specified by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to any request to grant financial assistance to the Prince Albert Pulp Company Limited under the terms of the Area Development Incentives Act.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. gentleman is agreeable to excepting from this motion documents emanating from the provincial government, with the exception of those in respect of which the government gives consent, as well as documents or correspondence the publication of which would likely cause damage to the competitive position of the company. However, with those two exceptions the motion is accepted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and limitations specified by the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, asking him whether, in view of the voluntary medicare plans approved by a number of provinces including Ontario and Alberta, the proposed compulsory medicare plan of the federal government can be made applicable to the voluntary plans of these provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has been said about this matter. We propose to proceed with our negotiations with the provinces on the basis of the compulsory medicare scheme.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister proceed with a plan if the provinces of Quebec and Ontario do not participate because it is so different from theirs it cannot be implemented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is out of order.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my
February 23, 1966

question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the widespread concern over the trucking strike in Ontario, and in view of the fact that a clarification with respect to part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code having to do with hours of work in the trucking industry might result in a settlement, I should like to ask the minister whether he would be prepared as soon as possible to make a statement about his decision regarding the application for a deferment under part I by the automotive transport association.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give the suggestion consideration.


David Orlikow: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that one of the major points of dispute relates to the increasing numbers of owner-operators in the trucking industry, I should like to ask the minister whether he will consider an early amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to include owner-operators under the provisions of that act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is now asking a question of a very general nature which should not be asked at this time.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform us as to whether any plans are being made to co-ordinate such Canadian exhibitions as the Calgary stampede, the Pacific National Exhibition and the Canadian National exhibition with Expo '67 programs as they relate to the over-all picture of the country in the centennial year?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a very interesting and important question which the hon. member may wish to place on the order paper.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the reply given by the President of the Privy Council to starred question 705 to the effect that the government considers the
23033-106^
Inquiries of the Ministry operations of the National Hockey League to be outside the purview of the Combines Investigation Act, and in light of the size and scope of the operations of this organization and the interest of the people of Canada in it; and having in mind the obvious restrictive effects of present arrangements as to the extension of franchises and other related matters, will the government give immediate consideration to amending the act so as to bring such operations within its scope in the interests of the people of Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will remember the remarks he made before a parliamentary committee in relation to the fact that services are not presently covered by the Combines Investigation Act. However, I am pleased to advise him-and I do not want to refer to the National Hockey League or any other specific organization-that in relation to any service, the question as to whether and to what extent services may be included within the ambit of the act is presently under consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a supplementary question. Whatever may have been said in the past does not seem to me to apply now; but in respect of the question as to whether services were exempted-and I am not entering into an argument on that situation-surely the minister does not feel we have to go into the whole matter of whether a sport in this sense is a service. Does the minister not rather feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member now is submitting an argument rather than asking a question. I would suggest that he ask his question at this stage.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I admit I was establishing a precedent on which I shall not elaborate. Will the minister consider the question as to whether sports and operations of this size and nature do fall within the descriptive word "services"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking for a legal opinion or interpretation of a statute and I suggest this cannot be done at this time.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I have filed a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act to bring professional sports within the ambit of
1874	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry that act, will the minister consider giving the bill government support at the first reading stage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns three ministers. It concerns the President of the Privy Council with regard to bankruptcies, and the Solicitor General with regard to the R.C.M.P., but I shall put my question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us if he intends to have a special inquiry made into the circumstances surrounding the death of Francois Payette, Montreal barrister and bankruptcy expert, who was murdered and whose body was found frozen in his car last night. We know barrister Frangois Payette recently took part in an inquiry into bankruptcies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not putting a question but rather submitting an allegation. His question is out of order.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I word my question differently?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who, I believe, is charged with responsibility in this field. Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to ask for a special investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of one Frangois Payette, in Montreal, whose death has just been announced?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: It is very difficult, again, to know to what extent this question is urgent. A similar question was asked by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, and it was argued by hon. members yesterday that whenever there was a violent death it should be automatically an urgent question, I cannot agree with this. I suggest to the hon. member that in the way the question is framed now it is not acceptable.
[Mr. Basford.l
DEBATES	February 25, 1966



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
In view of the importance of maintaining the milk production of this country to satisfy the demand-there will likely be a shortage of 400 or 500 million pounds of milk in Canada this year-can the minister tell the house whether farmers can expect $4.00 per cwt. for all manufactured milk?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question of a very general nature which cannot be accepted at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO EMBARGO ON CATTLE SHIPMENTS FROM FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister could tell the house whether the government intends to place an embargo on the shipment of cattle into Canada from France due to the prevalence of foot and mouth disease in Europe?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the importation of cattle, if it should take place, would not take place until the fall. My department is watching the situation carefully, and if there is any danger in the fall the importation of cattle would then, of course, be proscribed.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister please advise the house what action has been taken by his department in the search to locate the missing Newfoundland trawler Blue Mist II and her crew of 13, 12 of whom I understand are family men.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this tragic situation
which has affected particularly the constituency of my hon. friend for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) has been the occasion of a very careful, detailed and extensive search and
February 23, 1966

rescue operation by the coast guard ships John A. Macdonald and Montcalm, the fisheries patrol vessel Cape Freels, four trawlers belonging to the same company as the missing ship and seven R.C.A.F. aircraft. As of this morning 16,700 square miles had been covered by aircraft. There has been no sign of survivors. It does appear that three of the dories have turned up, unfortunately without any survivors in them.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Can the minister provide the house with information showing the increase, if any, in the value of imports of automobile parts and automobiles from the United States during the month of January, 1966?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, those statistics are not yet ready-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this is a question which is not so urgent that it should be answered at this time. The hon. member may wish to place it on the order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order and with great respect to Your Honour, I would agree with Your Honour that in ordinary circumstances information of this type should not be sought in the house on orders of the day.
However, in view of the fact that the whole question of the automobile parts treaty is a very current one, and the minister's estimates will be before the house very shortly, and further due to the fact that it is the general desire of the government and I think of everyone to have the study of the estimates completed very shortly, the question was asked because I feel it would greatly expedite the passage of the estimates of the minister's department if we had this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that if the estimates are to be considered by the house very shortly, that might be the time to ask the question of the minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Finance. In the preparation of his budget is the minister looking at the negative income tax as one means of providing a guaranteed annual income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a proper question at this time and should not be received. The hon. member may wish to place it on the order paper or discuss it at a later hour.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works concerning the National Captial Commission and publicity for our nation's capital as Canada approaches its centennial. Will the minister inform the house whether the National Capital Commission intends to promote the capital across the nation? If so, how and how soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaiierion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In order to promote tourism at a time when it is winter in the rest of Canada and spring in Victoria, British Columbia, would the Postmaster General give consideration to the request of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce to have our post office use the cancelling stamp "Spring Comes First To Victoria" prior to the Victoria spring flower festival commencing April 2?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the government house leader and ask what arrangements have been made with regard to the time of sitting of the house tomorrow, and in respect of the standing committees which are scheduled to meet tomorrow morning?

February 23, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government aircraft that is being provided tomorrow will arrive back in this city at 1.15 p.m., perhaps it would be agreeable that the house meet at three o'clock. If this is agreeable to all hon. members we could have it made an order of the house.
As for the meetings of the standing committees, I would be very glad to discuss that matter with the chairmen of the committees and perhaps something could be arranged so that most of them would not sit until either later in the day or the next day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it an order of the house that this house meet tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder if he can inform the house whether any decision has been reached with regard to an increase in old age pensions, or whether any alternate arrangement has been reached with the provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under consideration.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's statement last night on the outcome of the meeting last Thursday with the provinces, in which he said that Ontario and Quebec are in favour of a program to insure feed grain crops and dairy herds, and since the federal government pays 50 per cent of the administration of these programs, would the minister say whether he is in agreement with the provinces or whether he believes there should also be a government insurance program for cash crops?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question asks for a statement of policy, which I do not think should be given at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government house leader, but since he has been called away he may wish to take it as notice. As the special committee on food and drugs was constituted 10 days ago, can he say how soon members will be named to that committee?


Lawrence T. Pennell: will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister consider seeking for the Department of Industry the services of Mr. Ronald Todgham, president of Chrysler Corporation of Canada, with respect to obtaining advice on automotive safety devices?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper, if it is in order.



WAR ON POVERTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council that because of the lack of massive federal programs to wage the urgent war on povety Canadians are shouting "phony war", would the Prime Minister indicate what immediate steps are planned to convert the phony war into a real one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not putting a question that can be asked in this form at this time. She is making allegations, and I suggest to the hon. member that the question cannot be put in the form in which it has just been submitted.
February 23, 1966	COMMONS



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I have a question for the Minister of Finance which relates to the Canada Development Corporation. In view of the growing concern on the part of many in Canada in relation to this proposed legislation and the failure of the government to accede to requests that it be included in the program, can the minister tell us what the government's plans are in so far as introducing this legislation is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has been quite forthright in its attitude. The Canada Development Corporation was included in the Speech from the Throne and on a number of occasions I have stated it is a part of our program. We will proceed as soon as the opposition gives us an opportunity to proceed with legislation.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice or the President of the Privy Council, whoever is in charge of this matter. According to the last report of the restrictive trade practices commission, the agriculture chemical industry appears to be guilty of gross irregularities in its pricing policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Richard Schreyer: My question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot preface his question in the way he is doing, that is by making an allegation. This is highly irregular.


Edward Richard Schreyer: With your permission I will rephrase the question and ask the minister if, as a result of the tabling of the last report of the restrictive trade practices commission, he is contemplating taking any action under the Combines Investigation Act against certain firms in the agriculture chemical industry.


Guy Favreau: I first want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to put this question. I may say that the report of the restrictive trade practices commission, together with the evidence that
DEBATES	1677
Inquiries of the Ministry led to the report, are being referred to counsel to consider whether the evidence warrants proceedings.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister made such an effort to legalize the fill in lake Ontario south of Long Branch, placed there in contravention of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that the Ontario provincial government is now considering a revision of the Territorial Division Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order and cannot be asked at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question, Mr. Speaker,
is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises from a letter I had from him today, for which I thank him, informing me of the intention to close the Nanaimo general hospital. My question is this. Before reaching that decision did the minister have an assurance from the B.C. hospital insurance services that adequate beds would be supplied in the regional general hospital to take up the slack?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My understanding is that consultations with the British Columbia authorities revealed that adequate service could be provided in other hospitals in the area. There would be no reduction in service as a result of the proposed closing of the hospital.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the minister had that assurance from the B. C. hospital insurance service?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my understanding, but I shall be glad to check the matter further and make doubly sure.
February 23, 1966

Supply-National Defence [Translation]



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speak-ar, may I put a question to the Prime Minister? Does he intend to act upon the suggestion made recently by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) that out of the five main departments of the federal government, two should be headed by French Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise us of the order of the appearance of his colleagues on Pierre Berton's show so that we can ascertain the order of descent in respect of cabinet policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend so desires, I am sure it would be easy for him to get an invitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the newly appointed lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec is the former member for Lotbiniere would the Prime Minister accept the tribute and the thanks of the people of Lotbiniere?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: May
I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether there is any significance in the fact that the new Lieutenant Governor of Quebec comes from Lotbiniere, whose present member is a Republican?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE 15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force and $1,850,000 for grants to the town of Oromocto, $1,382,244,000.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the minister to explain a remark he made in answer to a question about Valcartier camp, and whether there was an artillery range there. I waited until I saw the report in Hansard, before-


The Chairman:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but there is a little more noise than usual in the chamber and it is difficult for the Chair to hear what the hon. member is saying.


Donald MacInnis: Can the
minister explain his reference to the fact that the range at Valcartier is congested with unexploded shells, and practically no firing can be done? Since there is no artillery or mortar range there can he explain why unexploded shells are congesting that range and how they got there?


Mr. Hellyer:: Well, I understand there is a variety of shells of various kinds going back the whole 50 years since the camp was in operation, and that they are pretty well concentrated in one major hill which exists in the present camp.


Donald MacInnis: I am
sorry, but I could not hear the reply the minister has given.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Would the Minister of
National Defence repeat the answer which he gave to that question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, did the hon. gentleman not hear the answer?


Donald MacInnis: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said I understood there was a variety of shells, including mortar shells, going back for some years, all concentrated in one area, I think the Pinky Mountain area. It is a condition inside the camp which is extremely limited.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I directed a question to the minister, as reported at page 1608 of Hansard, relative to the signal station which is now located at Albro Lake in Dartmouth and its relocation in Mill Cove in Lunenburg County. The minister indicated that he would reply to the question I asked, and I wonder whether he is prepared to do so at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this transfer is taking place. Did my hon. friend have a specific question with respect to it-I have forgotten? It is being transferred from Albro Lake to Blandford, as he suggested.
February 23, 1966


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I realize this, Mr. Minister, but the question I posed yesterday was whether you could give me some indication of the amount that your department intends to spend in this area, the approximate date when construction will be completed, and when the final move will be made from Albro Lake to Mill Cove.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the approximate date of the move will be in the fall of 1967, and the approximate cost is of the order of $3 million.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion last night about the directorate of information services, and I should like to explore a different facet of this question with the committee. A fairly extensive advertising campaign is carried on by the department in connection with recruiting. Could the minister tell the members of the committee how much money is allotted in the estimates to the recruitment program by way of advertising, where the money is spent, which advertising agencies have been given this very important task, and how are they picked?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the figure for next year is of the order of $700,000 to $800,000. The advertising agency is Vickers and Benson, of Montreal and Toronto. This, I might say, is about the smallest advertising program for many years. The department's expenditures many years ago for recruiting ranged up as high as $2 million a year or more. The figure has now been very substantially reduced, perhaps to even a lower figure than it should be.


David Orlikow: Could the minister tell the committee how the department picks the particular advertising agency? Does it call for tenders, does it ask agencies to submit ideas or programs? If so, how many agencies were contacted, or is this a particular agency with some special merit? If so, what is this special merit?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the department did place its advertising a year or two ago through, I think, four different agencies. At the time we introduced the bill in the house which embarked us upon the integration program, and subsequently, it was considered advisable to concentrate all of the advertising program in one agency. This was (a) because the amount involved was relatively small, and (b) because it would enable the agency to do more research and to provide better service at lower cost than would be the case with a multiplicity of agencies.
Supply-J ustice
At the time some thought was given to the selection of agencies. I was advised that Vickers and Benson was an aggressive, dynamic agency, one of the better agencies in the country, and therefore that firm was selected by the department for this particular task.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. This completes the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
The committee will now proceed to the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, before you start on the estimates of the Department of Justice I wonder whether I might express, on behalf of the associate minister and myself, our appreciation to the committee for the courtesy and co-operation which we have received during the study of these estimates.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Perhaps I might invite the minister to splice the mainbrace.


An hon. Member:: No navy left.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration, including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Estimates of the Department of Justice, vote No. 1.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the 1965-66 estimates I am well aware that members of the house are most anxious to debate certain specific questions relating to the Department of Justice, and I welcome the opportunity of stating my position on these matters. As was previously agreed upon, the Prime Minister will make a statement on the Spencer case as soon as I have finished a very short introductory statement. Although I propose to make a more complete statement in introducing the 1966-67 estimates, I wish to make a short statement concerning the division of responsibilities within the Department of Justice.
Important changes made in any long standing organization such as the Department of Justice give rise almost automatically to criticisms and complaints, particularly if the

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
changes themselves and the reasons that compelled them have not been sufficiently explained. This is what I propose to do now very briefly.
In essence, these changes are designed to enable the Department of Justice to concentrate its full resources on those problems and tasks which, by the terms of the Department of Justice Act, 1868, were intended to fall within its purview. While the character of the department has not undergone any significant change since it came into being nearly a hundred years ago, the addition of other responsibilities-some closely related to its basic functions, others not so readily identifiable-has made it increasingly difficult for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to perform his important duty as the principal law officer of the Crown.
This may have been the inevitable result of administrative and other pressures during the evolutionary period in our history as a nation, but I am convinced the time has come to take stock and redefine the functions of the department in relation to contemporary needs.
Over the years, the Department of Justice has been assigned responsibility for a variety of functions and services-among them combines investigation, the supervision of trustees in bankruptcy, the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Board-which are not directly related to the fundamental duties of the law officers of the Crown. As hon. members know, the principal responsibilities of law officers of the Crown are to advise and assist in the preparation of new legislation, to provide such guidance on constitutional matters and questions of law as the governor in council and senior members of the public service may require to enable them to discharge their responsibilities, to undertake periodic revision of the statutes and to initiate such legal actions as may be in the public interest.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The very considerable administrative responsibilities associated with those other additional functions I have described have tended to involve the Minister of Justice and the legal officers of his department to such an extent that it has not been possible for them to devote as much time to their primary tasks as would have been, and is now, desirable. In addition, these changing times and the urgent need to maintain respect for law as the keystone of a democratic society require some rethinking of the practices and procedures of

the Department of Justice, to ensure that in carrying out its basic tasks the department is keeping pace with new developments in our economic and social structure and in the international environment in which Canada must play its part.
As an example, revision of the statutes on a regular basis is essential to good administration and the public welfare generally. In the past, whenever a general review of the main body of our statute law has seemed desirable or necessary, this was accomplished outside the department at very high costs and the results at times left something to be desired. More recently ad hoc committees within the department dealt with the revision. Having regard to the heavy demands on the resources of the department, this method of revising the statutes has usually meant that legal officers whose services were urgently needed in other areas, had to be separated from their regular duties for lengthy periods. Such a revision of the statutes is now in progress and, as hon. members will appreciate, this is a demanding task. It is my hope, indeed it is my intention, that when the organization of the Department of Justice has been agreed upon a special division will be established within the department to hold a watching brief on all matters affecting the codification and revision of the statutes. This will ensure that the laws of Canada, reflecting the intent of parliament, are at all times consonant with the needs they were designed to meet. While there might have been some logic in the identification of responsibilities associated with the maintenance of good business practices with the Department of Justice in the past-an example would be the combines investigation branch as it now exists-these functions are, in fact, a part of the investigative and protective processes of public administration, and their transfer to other departments, while easing the work load within justice itself, will not prejudice or in any way interfere with the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to take such action as the results of these investigative and protective undertakings may require.
In respect of the prospect that our country may experience to an increasingly alarming degree the effects of the insidious spread of organized crime throughout North America-including the urgent problem of juvenile delinquency- and in the field of correctional services generally, there is need for a "new look'' and greater co-ordination of effort than has been possible under the former departmental structure. Heretofore the responsible
February 23, 1966

minister has been obliged to expend his energies in endeavouring to discharge his primary duty as the principal law officer of the crown, while maintaining control of a number of associated agencies, each of vital importance in its own sphere of operation. I submit that the concentration of responsibility for law enforcement and correctional services in the proposed new department of the Solicitor General is both a logical and a practical development.
At the same time, the nation must have assurance that adequate recognition has been given to the urgent problem of organized crime, the increasing incidence of juvenile delinquency and the need for more intensive and specialized studies in the related fields of correctional services and penal reform. The assignment of these tasks to the Solicitor General, and the erection of a new department to administer these responsibilities, represents a practical and necessary step in this direction. I want to make it clear, beyond any possibility of doubt, that the Minister of Justice must and will remain solely responsible for determining whether, as the result of any investigation made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other agency charged with regulatory or investigative responsibilities under the law, there is a case for prosecution and, in the event of a positive determination to that effect, for initiating the prosecution in all instances where this action lies within federal jurisdiction. To this extent the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will retain his traditional responsibility to ensure that the law is properly enforced. In fact, his position may be strengthened, to the benefit of the country, in that he will be able to devote his full attention to the important task of evaluating information supplied by the investigative agencies and deciding on appropriate courses of action.
Furthermore, the Minister of Justice will be freer to concentrate his efforts in trying to solve the increasingly difficult problem of drafting clearly and accurately the new and more complex legislation required by the economic, social and political evolution of a new and exciting century for Canada.
In this respect, it is my hope to be able to establish soon a separate division of the department to deal generally with legal research and law reform. I also propose for the sake of accuracy and clarity to take whatever steps are necessary to draft legislation in each of the two official languages in order to 23033-107J
Supply-Justice
avoid the difficulty of interpreting translated law.
In order to remove from our statutes obsolete, inadequate and outdated laws and regulations as well as to keep up with the day to day activities of the department, not only was it necessary to reorganize the department as has been done, but the minister must be given parliamentary time to bring the required amendments before the house for enactment, and I sincerely hope that with the application of the new rules of the house this will be possible.
These briefly are some of the reasons behind the changed responsibilities in the Department of Justice. I want to assure hon. members that the decisions which have been taken are the result of an earnest desire on the part of the government to achieve purposes which, I am sure, will commend themselves to members of this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether I might ask the minister a question, to clarify his opening remarks, and whether I might do so before the Prime Minister makes a statement. I take it that the estimates we are now discussing were the estimates based on the department as it existed before any suggested change. I take it that we shall be discussing the department as it existed prior to any suggested change made by the minister?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Chairman. The different matters coming under the estimates will be discussed by the minister who has the responsibility now. For instance, matters under penitentiaries and correctional institutions will be discussed by the Solicitor General. Those having to do with combine investigations will be discussed by the President of the Privy Council. The rest of the estimates coming under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice I shall discuss.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not usual for the Prime Minister to follow immediately after the minister in opening the discussion of the estimates of his department, but the circumstances of the situation are themselves not usual, and they arise out of a question which was addressed to the Minister of Justice toward the end of January, which he answered on January 31. The question was whether there should be a special inquiry, and whether the government would not institute a special inquiry into the circumstances of the dismissal of one Victor Spencer from the public service. The Minister of Justice

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
answered on January 31 at page 434 of Hansard. I quote the minister:
Having studied all the facts of this case, I do not feel it is necessary or useful to initiate a judicial inquiry into this matter. The procedures that have been followed by the R.C.M.P. are exactly the same procedures that were followed when my right hon. friend was in the government.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I was asked at that time by, I believe, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and certainly by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam whether I would not re-examine this matter myself and give further consideration to it. I said at that time that when a request of that kind is made I will always do my best to accede to it. So I did.
I have examined this situation personally. I have studied all the reports, all the documents concerning this case. I have spent a good many hours, Mr. Chairman, in doing so, because I know that the issues involved are important and I know that they have aroused very real uneasiness in the minds of hon. members. Not only did I study the details of this case and discuss them again with my ministerial colleagues who were more particularly concerned, but I examined other security cases in the last ten years which might throw some light on the justifiability or otherwise of the procedure followed in this instance-certain cases which were of very direct and immediate concern to the government of the day, which was the government preceding this government. As a result of this study and these considerations I wish to confirm the view which has been given by the Minister of Justice that an inquiry into this matter is not necessary and would not be useful.
I should like to put before the committee very briefly the considerations which led me to this conclusion-in so far as I can do so without any violation of security-and I think this is quite possible in the present case.
In the first place, Mr. Spencer himself has admitted, voluntarily admitted, improper activities which in the view of the government made his dismissal from the Civil Service of Canada not only desirable but necessary. In this dismissal for misconduct, which was carried -out pursuant to the Public Service Superannuation Act and to section 50 of the Civil Service Act, Mr. Spencer was in my view treated fairly. The fact that he personally has neither complained nor asked for any inquiry is, I believe, evidence of this fact.

In the second place it was Mr. Spencer himself who disclosed his identity as one of those referred to anonymously in the press release of last May dealing with certain espionage activities which resulted in the expulsion from this country of two intelligence officers of a foreign power. Mr. Spencer himself was never mentioned by name in this release or by any spokesman of the government. But he mentioned himself by name subsequently to the press.
Mr. Spencer was dismissed by virtue of a provision of the present Civil Service Act which was passed, I believe, in 1962-a provision which is essentially in the same form as that contained in the earlier act and under which security cases have been dealt with in the past by governments of this country, and under which they are expected to be dealt with in the future. That is section 50. There is no appeal against decisions made under this section of the act, as it was included in the Civil Service Act when it was passed after very careful examination by this house and by a committee of this house.
However, before a final decision was taken to dismiss Mr. Spencer he was given a hearing by a senior official of the Civil Service Commission, at which he had every opportunity to state his case. Neither at this hearing with a member of the Civil Service Commission present-and the Civil Service Commission has an interest in the protection of the rights of civil servants; this is the main responsibility of the commission-neither at this hearing nor at those held by Canadian security officers earlier did Mr. Spencer make any complaint over his dismissal or prospective dismissal, or any complaint about the treatment he had received.
The law officers of the Crown had advised against instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Spencer and proceedings were not taken. The primary purpose of the investigations in which Mr. Spencer himself was involved-and he was certainly only one of the persons involved in those investigations- was to identify, if possible, and remove a threat to the national security. In this respect, and in the removal of this threat, important and successful results were achieved. Evidence which made this possible was secured by security procedures which were normal, but which would make much of the evidence inadmissable in a court of law. If these procedures could not be used in this way in appropriate circumstances, or if all the details arising out of them must be made public, and
February 23, 1966

names made public, then the protection of our national security against subversive action would be greatly prejudiced if not made impossible.
The surveillance which has been exercised over Mr. Spencer in his own interest as well as in the public interest has been adapted to the requirements of this particular situation. After the study I have made of the evidence, and the discussions I have had-and I have taken this matter as seriously as I take any matter-I believe Mr. Spencer's dismissal and his loss of pension rights under the law was lawful and just. I do not believe his rights as a person or as a citizen have been violated. On the contrary, I believe he has been treated with scrupulous fairness.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have had two reports this afternoon, one from the Minister of Justice and another from the Prime Minister. For the next few moments I intend to direct a few remarks to the report just made by the Prime Minister and to the Spencer case.
Since I may be somewhat critical, I would ask hon. members on the other side of the house to bear with me-I was advised only a short time ago that I would be asked to speak in reply to the statement which the right hon. gentleman has made affecting this nation and the rights of individuals. I mention this in passing because our leader, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, is unavoidably absent today for reasons well known to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. It was the Leader of the Opposition who had been putting the questions and who had been most interested in the matter of civil rights so far as Spencer was concerned.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In starting out it might be well for me to review the Hansard record of May 11, 1965. On that day the Prime Minister gave a report to the House of Commons with respect to two members of the U.S.S.R. embassy who had been asked to leave this country for espionage reasons, and stated that certain members of the civil and public service had been connected with the affair. It might be interesting to put on record just what was said by the Prime Minister, and by the Leader of the Opposition who made our position very clear. At that time we asked for an inquiry. Today the Prime Minister has said that Mr. Spencer has been removed from the civil service, has been dismissed from his job and will not get his pension, and he feels in his opinion Spencer has been treated very justly and
Supply-Justice
fairly because he did have a hearing before the Civil Service Commission, or before the body which deals with those matters.
At the outset I would point out Spencer never did have any hearing. He was never charged with any violation of the laws of Canada. He has never been charged with any offence and has not been found guilty of an offence. He has never been given a fair and just hearing so far as the courts of law are concerned. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will agree with that any hearing he may have had with respect to his employment, or with respect to the civil service, is an entirely different kind of hearing from what he might have received if he had been charged with an offence and was found innocent or guilty. The fact is that this man has not been charged with any offence, and in that way I say there has been a miscarriage of justice.
I am sure in some respect all of us are in sympathy with the government in dealing with matters relating to the security of the state and in dealing with spy cases. This is not the first such case and probably will not be the last, but it is always difficult for the government to handle a matter such as this.
Now, let us see what the Prime Minister said on May 11 last year:
The Information on which action was taken in this matter came to the security authorities not only from one of the Canadians approached, but also from other sources which I am sure the house will understand must be protected if our counterespionage efforts are to continue to be successful, as they were in this instance. On security grounds it is not, therefore, in the public interest to give all the detailed information requested in the house yesterday.
I am in full accord with that. It is difficult in these cases to give that information. It probably should not be given at any stage, at this stage particularly, but that does not say we should not have had an inquiry in camera, a judicial inquiry or a royal commission which could have been held in camera to look into the situation to see if this individual's rights were usurped. After all, he has not been charged with any crime. He has not been brought before any court, judged by any judge or jury, and yet he is still under surveillance. What does surveillance mean? I took the time to look up the definition.
Surveillance may mean the same as the Supreme Court of Canada laid down in the famous Sankey case when it was dealing with the questioning of an accused by police officers as to the admissibility of statements made by accused persons to police officers, and the

February 23, 1966
Supply-J ustice
matter of whether he was under custody or not. Surveillance means, in the Oxford dictionary, supervision, close observation, investigation, not trusted to work or go about unwatched.
Today the Prime Minister said that the reason for refusing a hearing of any kind was to protect the individual himself. I might ask, how long will this surveillance go on? In that regard we have some sympathy with the government in reference to matters of security.
On May 11 last year the Prime Minister also said:
In regard to the two individual cases mentioned in the press release, one Canadian mentioned cooperated conscientiously from the beginning with our security authorities. Far from being motivated by "illicit gain and greed", this conscientious and patriotic Canadian reported to our security authorities the very first approach made to him; and this information is not usually made public.
Well, if this is the conscientious and patriotic Canadian, he has now been fired from the public service of this country and has his pension cut off.
In the other case mentioned in the communique the circumstances unfortunately were different. The person involved in this case is a civil servant in a very junior position in an non-sensitive department. His place of work is not in Ottawa. The person is at present on sick leave and is in fact gravely ill.
I pause there. The first time questions were put to the Minister of Justice and the government with reference to whether there would be a charge laid against Spencer, their answer was that he was very ill. But then for some strange reason, as we read from press reports, as I shall do in a few minutes, he miraculously recovered. Later when we questioned the Minister of Justice as to whether there was going to be a charge laid, or was the surveillance going to continue, the minister said there was no evidence. Well, if there is not evidence I would say if Spencer is under surveillance it is almost like being in custody. It is almost as the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Sankey case, that if the accused was not under arrest he was practically under arrest while being detained by police officers for questioning.
The question is: Is this individual free? Is he free to go about his work, to go about his way in society according to the rules laid down by the rule of law? Is this surveillance, as the Prime Minister said, solely for the protection of the individual, or to watch this individual so that he may not usurp the state's security? That is a question that has not been answered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know my hon. friend does not wish to misquote what I said. I said that was one of the two reasons he was under surveillance. One was for his own interests, because he stated in November if he told what he knew both he and the reporter who heard him would shortly be assassinated. The other reason was the public interest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the Prime Minister for that interruption. I listened to him very carefully. That was one of the reasons given but it is a very weak reason. If that is a very weak reason then the main reason this man is under surveillance is because the government feels he might do something to the security of our nation, and if that is the kind of evidence they have then I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice-and I say it not in the tone of criticism that might be offered in this regard-it is time that a charge was laid, that this man be brought before the courts, that he be acquitted or found guilty, because it is too important a matter to be left up in the air.
What was the position we took at the time the Prime Minister made his statement on May 11? It is to be found at page 1141 of Hansard for that date, and it was set out very carefully by the Leader of the Opposition who said:
Necessarily, as responsible Members ol Parliament we do not want to do anything that will prejudice to the slightest degree the investigation that is being made. However, in view of the widespread nature of these activities, I feel that the government should have an investigation by a royal commission, to look into this whole question and ascertain the degree to which espionage is going on within our country. Such a royal commission would not necessarily have to meet in the open. Composed of judges, it could take secret evidence which otherwise ought not to be revealed.
Not only would a royal commission clear up this matter but it would clear up other matters that may be pending in reference to this situation.
[DOT] (4.T0 p.m.)
Let us look at the facts in their very simple form before I take the position which I shall take, in that I feel this individual's civil rights are, to say the very least, being usurped. What about Spencer; who was he? Spencer was a postal clerk who revealed his identity apparently some months after the government announcement of May 8 that two Soviet embassy employees were being expelled. Spencer, according to statements made by the Prime Minister and according to our own press statements, was a civil servant
February 23, 1966

who had co-operated with the police only after being confronted by them. Spencer's job was to provide information on the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and other countries, and perform economic and intelligence tasks.
The other unidentified person was paid, as was Spencer, thousands of dollars to provide technical information relating to defence, industry, and to compromise other Canadians including female employees of the government. He was given specialized training to familiarize himself with these tasks. The Prime Minister said Spencer was very ill. I would say now, from newspaper reports, that if he was ill recently he has miraculously recovered, or at least is not as ill as he was.
Then on February 2 the Prime Minister said he would consider the question of an inquiry. Earlier, in making statements to the press, Spencer said that if there was an inquiry, heads would roll. Now, the question I would like to ask is this-and I will read from the press reports in a few moments in this regard. I see the Prime Minister shaking his head. Allow me to build up my case, and then I will read from the press reports. I see the President of the Privy Council laughing. He is laughing at the method I am using, because he knows it is a very serious matter. As I said at the beginning, I have not had sufficient time to go into this thoroughly.
Spencer said heads would roll. I will ask this question: Whose heads would roll? Were they heads in high places; were they heads in the places where the investigation is done; were they heads in some service in Canada? Whose heads would roll?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said he never said that.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister said it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right; I said that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to put one or
two of those backbenchers in the same position I am in, because I have not had more than half an hour to prepare this and I do not have a research group behind me. I have not always been the best behaved member of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are doing fine.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is an important matter this afternoon and I would just ask that your group give me a fair hearing, because after
Supply-Justice
all it is important and I want to put our position very clearly before the house.
I am going to read from the Toronto Daily Star of November 2, 1965. This is what the report said:
'Heads swim if I talk' spy suspect warns. Vancouver (CP-Special)- A spy suspect the government claimed was dying last May is alive in Vancouver and warns that if he ever talked "there would be some heads swimming in Canada and elsewhere", according to a report here.
The Vancouver Province says the 57 year old man sometimes uses the name Wilson and works in the post office.
"He readily agreed that he was the man whom members of the R.C.M.P. accused of supplying information on to a Russian spy network," the newspaper says.
Two members of the Russian diplomatic service left Ottawa May 7 after being declared persona non grata.
If that statement is not correct, then would it not be better to have that kind of inquiry or that kind of commission in camera? Certainly the evidence produced should be made available to the privy councillors and the government for the security of our nation. But let us clear up what he means by "heads will roll". Maybe those heads which should roll are still in the kind of jobs where they might be dangerous and could undermine the nation at the present time.
I see the President of the Privy Council shake his head. But they do not know because they have not had that kind of inquiry-not that inquiry, anyway. The point I would like to make at the present time is that I want to talk about Mr. Spencer himself personally for a few moments. I realize the same as everybody in this house that the security of our nation is very important.
When we are dealing with a question of security sometimes there is a tendency to do what we might do in ordinary cases, and that is to run slipshod over those things which we call civil rights, liberty. After all we are governed by the rule of law in Canada. Let us, for a few moments, look at a definition, and this is in a speech made by Dean Cron-kite of the University of Saskatchewan, former dean of law. At that time he was dealing with the spy case of 1945. The Prime Minister and his government will remember this, because at that time there was an inquiry to look into the manner in which those people who were arrested were treated and interrogated. There is a precedent for such an inquiry, and I am going to read this to show that there is such a precedent. We are talking about the freedom of the individual and sometimes it pays to be a little philosophical.

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
I know the Prime Minister can get that way, and when he does I enjoy it. Dean Cronkite said this in December of 1946, in The Law Society's Gazette.
I take it that the liberty with which we are concerned today is the liberty of people living in society, that civil liberty is that which Montesquieu defined as the capacity to obey the laws. Back in the Maritimes we used to say that a person with a particular desire for liberty, come what might, was as independent as a hog on glare ice. We are not talking about that kind of unrestrained liberty. We are concerned with civil liberties,with liberties under the law, with the liberties of people living in organized society. That is quite a different thing from the liberty of the man unrestrained by laws, fearing not man, God nor the devil. But granting that we are talking about liberty under the law I doubt very much if the concept of civil liberties as such has ever been comprehensively defined or is capable of definition apart from the ideals of the time and place including the fundamental moral philosophy of the people subject to the laws.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is just this simple. The reason any one of us as a citizen of this country has the right to assemble here or go to our homes, the reason any of our children have the right to land safely at school and return home, is that we are protected by the rule of law. The rule of law protects individuals; but when we assert civil rights as spelled out by the rule of law, then we are bringing about an understanding of civil liberties as we understand them in this nation.
I want to repeat that this man is under surveillance although he has never been charged. He cannot hold a job in the public service, he cannot obtain his pension and he cannot go anywhere unobserved because he is under observation. We do not know whether he is to be kept under surveillance for one year or for 20 years. In spite of this he has not been given a hearing.
The Prime Minister has stated that this man has not complained, but let me inform the Prime Minister that in my experience I have known of many individuals who have been incarcerated in jails in this country who have not complained. Do you know why they have not complained? It is because they were afraid to complain. Maybe this man is afraid to complain.
I repeat that we all realize the importance of security, particularly in respect of Canada, but we must always realize as well that this nation exists because of the freedom of the individual. Therein lies in a nutshell the weakness of the Minister of Justice and the weakness in the argument put forward by the Prime Minister and his government.

I should like to remind this government of something that was said by a former cabinet minister at the time the government of that day did something similar in reference to a spy case in 1945. I should like to put on record the words of Mr. Powers in regard to that case. Back in 1945 he referred to something that Mr. Cronkite dealt with, and he refers to arguments presented by A. L. Smith, Mr. Coldwell, C. G. Powers, Mr. Diefenbaker and others. This is what Mr. Powers said, as reported in the Saskatchewan Bar Review of December, 1946, at page 68:
As for me, brought up in an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of Magna Carta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history seven hundred years and repeal Magna Carta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government. If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral, and I do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.
I suggest that what has taken place as far as the Spencer case is concerned is on all fours with what took place in reference to that matter when people were being incarcerated, denied counsel and interrogated without knowing whether they were going to be charged or not. Some were charged and some were released without charges being laid. I do not know whether or not they are still under surveillance.
Perhaps the terms of Magna Carta should be repeated at this time, but I think the important thing is that most Canadians would rather have an ounce of freedom than a pound of security. Let me read the pertinent part of Magna Carta, which is:
No freeman shall be arrested, imprisoned dispossessed, outlawed, banished, or hurt in his person or property, nor will we in person or through our officers lay hands upon him save by the lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.
What is the situation in reference to Mr. Spencer? He is still under surveillance. Perhaps the Prime Minister will reconsider his position and allow this man an inquiry in camera so that he can set out the facts that he has not divulged as yet. Let him indicate who these people in high places are whose heads he says will roll. I know that the Prime Minister does not like to hear that statement but-
February 23, 1966


Guy Favreau: He never said that heads would roll.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am only showing some emotion, Mr. Chairman, because, as the hon. member knows from reading the press statements, he did not say that heads will roll: He said heads will swim. Surely there is some difference between heads rolling and heads swimming.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the Prime Minister corrected me in that regard, but I think I have read something which indicated that he has said heads would roll. Perhaps the Prime Minister has a better idea of what he said as a result of reading all the pertinent reports, because he has more time than I have. Let us assume that he said heads would swim rather than that heads would roll. Surely we are not talking about physical swimming, and when an individual gets dizzy and excited it is usually because he is disturbed at being close to the hot seat, or close to the facts. This is a psychological factor, a part of human behaviour.
Surely this man should have an inquiry, even if it is held in camera. In this regard let us consider what the national newspapers have said. First let us look at the Gazette of February 2, 1966. In an editorial that appeared in that issue the following is stated:
Prime Minister Pearson's decision to consider establishing a judicial inquiry in the alleged spy case involving George Victor Spencer is another example of the Government's tendency to reverse its stand.
Apparently a reversal of stand was anticipated. The editorial then continues as follows:
The Government's actions in the Spencer case became, over the months, so peculiar that judicial investigation would ultimately be necessary to justify them. For here was the case of a young civil servant, working in a minor job in a post office, who was alleged to have been in some way involved with the attempts made by officials of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa to carry out espionage. The espionage activity of the Russian Embassy officials was considered to be sufficiently serious for the Government of Canada to insist on their expulsion from Canada.
Mr. Pearson informed the House of Commons in the spring that the Russians had been in contact with three Canadians. Two of them had co-operated with the police and thereby played a valuable part in exposing the plot. The third Canadian had not been co-operative. Or as Mr. Pearson put it, in the case of this third Canadian "the circumstances unfortunately were different".
Supply-Justice
I assume that was in reference to the Spencer case. If the circumstances are different, why is he still under surveillance? The editorial then continues and states:
The name of this third Canadian was not given. But he was later identified by a Vancouver newspaper as George Victor Spencer. And Spencer himself readily admitted that he was the one who had been mentioned in Parliament. He is alleged to have gone further and to have made the extraordinary statement that if he were to tell all he knew about Russian espionage operations, "heads would be rolling in Canada and elsewhere".
That is where I read the expression. I knew I had read it somewhere during lunch time, and apparently he made this statement on another occasion. The editorial then states:
The Government, however, declined to take legal proceedings against Spencer. The grounds given were that the evidence was not of such a nature as would be likely to procure a conviction in court, and that such a trial would disclose too much of Canada's counter-espionage methods.
Had the matter rested at this point, there might still have been questioning about the Government's decision.
Later in the editorial the following is stated:
The different pieces of the Spencer case became harder and harder to reconcile. If the man was considered, after careful examination and an interview, to be unsuitable even as a 'junior civil servant' working outside Ottawa in a 'non-sensitive job,' his disqualifications must have been serious.
I agree with the Montreal Gazette in that regard. The editorial continues:
If they were of a nature having nothing to do with his alleged involvement in the Russian espionage activity, his dismissal from his post should have taken place in the normal course of events-
This information should have been made public, but it has not been made public. The last paragraph of this editorial states:
It is necessary that the assurance should be given* by means of a judicial inquiry, that what has been done in this strange case has been done on sufficient grounds.
That is the position taken by the Gazette. The Toronto Globe and Mail of November 27, 1965 had this to say about the Minister of Justice and his dealings in this case:
In this case, there is not sufficient evidence of a legally admissible character to ensure reasonable likelihood of conviction.
That is reportedly a statement made by the Minister of Justice. I would like to hear the Minister of Justice explain this situation. Because some law officer's opinion is that there is not a likelihood of conviction, but because there is some evidence against Spencer he is fired from his position, his salary is

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
cut off, his pension is cut off and he remains under surveillance, which means partly in custody.
Is this man free? Is he as free as any member of this House of Commons? The answer to those questions is obviously no, because he is under surveillance and I want to know why. I suggest that he should be given a hearing.


Mr. Churchill:: Can he leave the country?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, that is another good question. Somebody asked, could he leave the country? He probably cannot leave the place where he lives. This is what the Brandon Sun said in connection with the Spencer case:
The man's reputation is ruined. He has been named. The Minister of Justice has stated that he gave information to the Russians. But the justice minister will not give him the satisfaction of having his case tried.
Those on the other side of the chamber talk about hearings. They went a long way in this regard at one time. I remember the Minister of Transport said when we were dealing with the Coyne affair that it was a terrible thing for Mr. Coyne, it was against the Bill of Rights, that he did not receive a hearing in the House of Commons, even if he had one in the Senate. If the law is to be applied for one person in Canada who holds a high position, is it right for Mr. Spencer to be denied the same privilege?
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Bow River but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the Chair now understand that the hon. member should continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This article in the Brandon Sun goes on to say:
The man's reputation has been ruined, and for all anyone knows, he may not even have done what the justice minister says he did. And even if he did do it, the justice minister apparently feels that what he did was not serious enough to merit prosecution.

Then the writer of this newspaper article says:
This is a ridiculous situation.
I say it is ridiculous and preposterous. The article continues:
We have a man whose integrity is in question, who is being shadowed like a criminal, and yet who has done nothing, apparently, to merit prosecution under the Criminal Code. The worst that can be said is that he was guilty of poor taste and bad judgment for giving information to Soviet agents. And yet we do not even know that he did that I Has Mr. Cardin come down with a case of Favreau-itis? Are incompetence and forgetfulness an occupational hazard of justice ministers? It would appear so, and that appearance will linger until all the facts are known.
That appearance will linger until this man has been given a hearing, even though it be in camera. Let us look at the Globe and Mail. They are just as critical. Similar articles appeared in all our national newspapers. They are critical because they realize, as I am sure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice realize, that the most important civil right is liberty as I described it this afternoon in the definition given by Dean Cronkite, formerly of the University of Saskatchewan, and the words used by the Hon. Mr. Powers, former cabinet member at the time another spy case was being investigated.
The article in the Globe and Mail says:
The justice minister at the same time said that Spencer would be kept under surveillance so long as he remained in Canada, which would seem to mean for the rest of his life, since he is a Canadian.
The question to be asked is, how long is this man to remain under surveillance? When will he be able to throw off the cloak and the umbrella, if ever? The article continues:
He has been dismissed from his job in the post office, cut off from pension, without right of appeal.
I shall deal with that question once more. Surely the fact that he received a hearing before the Civil Service Commission has nothing to do with his rights as a citizen of this nation to have determined the question of whether he is guilty or innocent of the charge of espionage.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He did not even have an appeal before the Civil Service Commission.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, he had no appeal; and we never know what influence is used in that regard. The article in the Globe and Mail then says:
That the surveillance, the dismissal from the job and the decision not to prosecute still stand, was confirmed in the house yesterday by Mr. Cardin.
February 23, 1966

This article appeared in the February 1, 1966, issue of the Globe and Mail and was written by Mr. George Bain. I think it should be placed on the record. It continues:
Surveillance of a person believed to have formed an intention to commit a particular crime may be reasonable and essential to law enforcement, as the justice minister says. Never-ending surveillance to satisfy some generalized suspicion that a person might at some time commit some crime is a device of the police state.
Those are strong words. They are not my words; they are the words of the Globe and Mail, one of the leading national newspapers of this country, written by Mr. Bain. Then the article says:
Mr. Cardin is on shaky ground-
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have often wondered about that but I shall not go into it now:
-too, when he argues against even an in-camera hearing of Spencer's alleged offences on the ground that counter-espionage methods would be disclosed, and argues at the same time that the man got a fair shake in the firing proceedings because "the Civil Service Commission was asked to make a full examination of the case ..."
This suggests either that Mr. Cardin believes the Civil Service Commission can be entrusted with a matter which could not safely be entrusted to a judicial committee, or that the Civil Service Commission rendered its "independent and objective advice" on the basis of less-than-full knowledge of the case.
That is strong language but it is language I put to the government and ask them to reconsider their position. I ask the Prime Minister the same question. It is not the first time this government has had to retreat on matters. I am sure their pride will not be punctured if they have to retreat on this matter, because we are dealing with a question of civil rights. Then the article says:
He was then accused-and from that, the natural processes of justice should follow, or should be altered only for some much better reason than the government has seen fit to offer.
I could go on reading these quotations, Mr. Chairman. Newspapers throughout the land take the same position. In 1945 a precedent was set when we had a spy case under investigation. I am speaking from memory now and my reading of some years ago, but I believe 11 people were involved in that case. I may have to correct that figure. A commission was set up because men like Mr. Dief-enbaker, Mr. Coldwell and Mr. Powers set out the argument in favour of a commission far more ably than I can this afternoon.
A similar situation was being dealt with at that time and a hearing was held in the case. The Minister of Justice at that time is, as the
Supply-J ustice
Prime Minister knows, a very distinguished Canadian, Mr. St. Laurent. The precedent was set at that time. The Prime Minister said he has reviewed the cases in this respect. I am not being critical but I think he missed this particular case. There is precedent in this regard, and as there is precedent, and the argument advanced by the government, is that there is not, let us follow precedent and give this man a hearing. The Saskatchewan Bar Review of December, 1946, had this to say:
It should further be noted that a commission composed of Justices Taschereau and Kellock was appointed under the Inquiries Act to investigate the ramifications of the alleged spy ring. Mr. E. K. Williams, K.C., President of the Canadian Bar Association, along with two other legal gentlemen, was appointed commission counsel. In mid-February the people of Canada first heard of the matter when the suspects were gathered in under rather dramatic circumstances, pursuant to the order in council just referred to. On February 15 the Prime Minister made a public statement and from then until parliament met on March 14 the newspapers and all the rest of us had a good time speculating and accusing.
That is what we are doing now, speculating and accusing Mr. Spencer. He is under surveillance for the rest of his life. Let us get off his back. Let us give him a hearing that the rule of law allows any citizen of Canada. I cannot make my point any clearer than that, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to digress from this subject for a few moments. When the estimates of the Department of Justice were placed before us the Minister of Justice made a statement. I would ask him how we are to handle the old estimates because there is now some confusion and a divisive element with regard to ministerial responsibility. We on this side of the chamber were not sure, when we prepared our remarks for these estimates, what branches some matters come under. I would ask the minister to reconsider his position in this regard because it seems to me this government has taken the position that when they appoint a minister in whom they have not absolute confidence they delegate part of his department to somebody else.
I will give the committee an illustration. Consider, for example, the positions of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce lost responsibility for the Wheat Board and it was given to the Minister of Finance. Now we have a Minister of Justice half of whose work is given to the Solicitor General and some to the President

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
of the Privy Council. We on this side of the chamber do not know what matters come under what department. I would point out to backbenchers opposite that there is hope for them; they will probably all be privy councillors eventually, in view of the fact that there is a high mortality rate among Liberal cabinet members.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is an understatement for me to say that I am deeply disappointed by the statement which has been made this afternoon by the Prime Minister. It seems to me a very serious matter when the head of the government of Canada rises in his place in this house to put his stamp of approval upon a situation in Canada where a man can be charged, without being given the opportunity to prove his innocence; where he can be punished without a trial and where he can be stigmatized without a hearing. This is exactly what has happened to Victor George Spencer.
I do not need to say that neither I nor any member of the party with which I am associated, nor any other member in this house, takes any exception to the government's using firm, stringent measures to deal with espionage. We take it for granted that this is the function of the government. I do not know Mr. Spencer. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East has him in his constituency and has known him for several years. He certainly does not gather the impression he is either a very dangerous or a very sinister figure.
But it seems to me to be elementary justice that if this man is a menace to the security of this nation, then he ought to be tried, found guilty and punished. Surely he has the right to be heard. Surely he has the right to his day in court. He has the right to be deemed innocent until he is proven guilty.
Let us look at what has happened. On May 8 the Department of External Affairs issued a statement in which they referred to two Canadians who had been allegedly engaged in espionage activities, one of whom co-operated with the R.C.M.P. and who, by the way, secured large sums of money apparently for the purpose of compromising female civil servants, which does not make a very pretty picture. The second, who did not co-operate but who was confronted and admitted some association with agents of the U.S.S.R., was

described in these terms by a report of the Department of External Affairs:
In one instance a Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars to gather information and documentation in Canada, the purpose of which was to assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and in other countries, and to perform economic intelligence tasks, including the provision of detailed information on the trans-mountain pipe line system in Western Canada.
The Prime Minister told us at that time that this second individual was gravely ill, but the impression was certainly given that in the event of his recovery he would be prosecuted. Well, from the newspapers I gather the man was gravely ill. I understand that last May he had a lung removed. But there was no prosecution when he recovered. Instead the Minister of Justice told the house there was not sufficient admissible evidence to warrant prosecution.
What has happened has been that the government has proceeded now to be the judge, the jury and the prosecuting attorney all rolled into one. The government had one or two alternatives which it could have taken. First of all, there has been set up by the government a senior civil servants committee on security. Hon. members will recall this committee was set up a couple of years ago largely because of a case which was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This case concerned a young sailor who was discharged from the government on security grounds. It was discovered later this was a matter of mistaken identity. We pressed in the house for some appeal board to which persons in the government service or in the armed services might go if they were accused of being a bad security risk. At that time the Prime Minister agreed to set up such a committee. This man might have been given the opportunity to appear before it.
A few days ago the Prime Minister said it was not appropriate for Spencer to appear before this committee because he was not in a job that had to do with security. If he was not in a job that had to do with security, how does the government explain the fact that the Postmaster General said in his public statement the man was dismissed for security reasons? The Postmaster General says he is dismissed for security reasons, but the Prime Minister says this man cannot appear before a security committee because he was not in a job that had to do with security. He was ruled out of that possibility.
February 23. 1966

The next choice the government had was to [DOT]dismiss Spencer in the normal course of events and allow him the right to appear before the Civil Service Commission. The government could have placed whatever evidence it had at its disposal before that body and Spencer could have appeared, I assume with counsel, and could have defended himself. But the government did not do this. Instead, the government dismissed him under section 50 of the Civil Service Act, which denies this man the right of appeal and cancels his pension.
The other day the Prime Minister said they sent someone out to see him. I understand from press reports it is true that Mr. J. A. Murray, the director of the appeals branch of the Civil Service Commission, went to Vancouver and interviewed Spencer. Does the Prime Minister think that constitutes a hearing, Mr. Chairman, that sending a civil servant to interview a man constitutes giving him a chance to prove his innocence? Is this individual, Mr. Murray, who interviewed him to be sole judge, jury and executioner? This is not a hearing before the Public Service Commission. This is an investigation before they dismissed him, and after having assured themselves that the Civil Service Commission were satisfied, and there would be no complaint from them, the government proceeded to fire him. I do not wonder that the postal employees union in Vancouver registered the strongest possible objection to this nefarious use of this vicious and dictatorial section in the Civil Service Act.
Now, the other thing the government did was to take Spencer's pension away from him. I gather from press reports that this man is 57 years of age. How is he supposed to live and maintain his family for the rest of his life? This man's pension is part of his deferred wages. The pension rights of an individual are earned over a period of years and the contributions which the government makes are one of the fringe benefits of his employment. By what right does the government take this money which belongs to this man? If this man lives his normal life expectancy, the amount of money which the government has taken from him amounts to several thousands of dollars. In other words, they have fined him.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Is the government now a court that can accuse a man, condemn him and fine him his life's pension without giving him a hearing or
Supply-J ustice
a trial, without giving him the opportunity to say what he has to say in his own defence? Surely this is a scandalous state of affairs. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is a sad day for Canada when a man can be punished without trial, can be accused without being given a chance to appear in open court; when a man, whom the Minister of Justice says there is not enough evidence to prosecute, can be stigmatized, have his pension taken from him, be dismissed from his employment and placed under surveillance for the rest of his life, being fined thousands of dollars of pension money which is his by right.
The Prime Minister made a defence of the action taken by the government. First of all, he said that Spencer admitted improper conduct. How do we know that? How does the Prime Minister know it? Is he just relying on a report in a police file? Has this man ever said in court that he was guilty? And guilty of what? To what offence has he admitted being guilty of? Are people now to be condemned on the basis of a police report or on the transcription of an interview with some government official? We do not know that he has admitted improper conduct, and the Prime Minister does not know it except by accepting a document presented to him by some people in the government service.
The Prime Minister says that this man disclosed his identity. The government disclosed his identity the day they fired him. Every person at his place of employment knew that this man had been fired because he was associated with the charges, the public accusations, that had been made by the Department of External Affairs. As a matter of fact, this man did not identify himself; he was accosted by a newspaperman who said to him: "Are you the person who was referred to in the external affairs department release of May 8?" What was he supposed to do-lie? Was he supposed to perjure himself?
Why does the Prime Minister expect this man to join this general conspiracy of silence? If the man had nothing to be ashamed of, why would he not say, "Certainly I am the fellow who was mixed up in this mess; all I want now is a chance to tell my side of the story"?
It seems to me that the weakest argument put forth by the Prime Minister is when he says that we must protect our national security system, because if we do not it will be impossible to carry on proper counterespionage in this country. Not one member of this

February 23, 1966
Supply-Justice
house, Mr. Chairman, I am sure, is asking that all the background information of the counterespionage system of this country should be laid open to the public. Of course that would be impossible. What we in the opposition parties have been asking for has been an in camera judicial inquiry. All we are asking is that a judge or a group of judges be constituted, before whom this man can appear with his counsel and tell his story, before whom documents can be examined and the whole case gone into. If the judicial inquiry tells us and the people of Canada that it is satisfied that this man has been properly, fairly and justly treated, then I for one will say no more about the matter.
But what are we given, Mr. Chairman? The Prime Minister stands up in his place and says: "I believe that this man's treatment has been lawful and just". I would tell the Prime Minister that there is a verse in the Bible which asks: Who made thee a judge in Israel? Since when has the Prime Minister become a court? I have great respect for the Prime Minister and I do not believe that he would willingly do an injustice to any person. But with the greatest possible respect I am not prepared to give to him or to any other person in Canada the power to condemn a man until he has been tried by the due process of law.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The new politics, they call it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister says that this man's human rights have not been impaired. The Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, must surely have had his tongue in his cheek when he made that statement. This man has been stigmatized from one end of Canada to the other as one who was setting up espionage in this country. He is going to be kept under surveillance, the Minister of Justice tells us, for as long as he lives in Canada. Yet the Prime Minister says his human rights have not in any way been impaired.
What I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, is the real reason the government has refused to grant an in camera judicial inquiry. Whom are they trying to cover up for? Did the Department of External Affairs, in the anxiety of the minister to pose as the spy catcher of the age, make accusations which they could not substantiate? Did the Department of External Affairs go too far, and then the Department of Justice find that they really had not the grounds for the things they had

been saying? What is the real story at the back of this? Is the government's refusal to have an inquiry an attempt to whitewash the ineptitude and the incompetence of some people within the government service? This is what we want to know.
The Canadian people will not be satisfied with having the Prime Minister rise in his place and say: "After carefully looking over all the files I am satisfied that this man has been treated justly and fairly". It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that justice has been done. The Canadian people must be satisfied that justice has been done. Justice must seem to have been done; and I do not think that the Canadian people will be satisfied until the government gives this man a chance to appear, even behind closed doors, before a panel of judges who can hear all the facts and decide whether or not this man has been treated fairly before the law.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, if we are to survive as a free and democratic nation one thing we must preserve is the due process of law. As long as one citizen, humble though he may be, unimportant as he may seem to the government, is denied access to the courts and denied the due process of law, then something of our freedom in Canada has been diminished.	.


Maurice Rinfret: In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



EDUCATION


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should consider the creation of a federal office of education, the purpose of which would be to provide, in co-operation with the provinces, a clearing house for research and information concerning elementary and secondary education, the co-ordination of the present activities of the federal government in education, and to provide leadership in the general field of postsecondary education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last week a somewhat similar resolution was presented by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin)
February 23, 196G	COMMONS
having to do with the involvement of the federal government in education. At that time members of this house were reminded, I think by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) that the hon. member for St. John's West ought to look at the British North America Act, sections 92 and 93, to see what they said concerning education. Of course I and the hon. member for St. John's West have always been aware what those two sections of the B.N.A. act said with reference to education. I submit that that is not the whole story, and that the federal government is involved, and quite properly involved, in certain aspects of education. Section 91 of the act gives the federal government responsibility for the Indians of Canada, and in carrying out that responsibility the government has established a system of Indian education in this country. That is a system of considerable size because I notice that the budget for Indian education in the year 1966-67 is $38 million.
Defence, of course, is also a federal responsibility, and under this heading a considerable amount of money is spent. There are service colleges for the training of officers. There are the ordinary elementary and secondary schools which the Department of National Defence operates in Canada and overseas for the children of men in the armed forces. I am afraid that I could not tell you what the figure is, because the amount spent for this purpose is not shown separately in the estimates.
The external aid office of the Department of External Affairs is also involved in giving educational assistance to developing countries in other continents. These are three activities with respect to education in which the federal government is quite properly involved, and which do not infringe upon the rights of the provinces in any way.
Apart from this the federal government has become concerned in recent years with other aspects of education. If hon. members look again at the estimates for 1966-67 they will see an amount of $186 million to be voted under the terms of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. As we all know these are moneys to assist in the building of technical and vocational schools in the provinces and, as I say, the amount of money there involved is $186 million.
Recently the Prime Minister announced an increase in aid to universities. The amount to be spent by the federal government, this year, for that purpose will be $100 million.
DEBATES	1893
Proposed Federal Office of Education
Adding up all the figures I have quoted, Mr. Speaker, you will see that they amount to somewhere around $240 million. This amount of money is quite apart from research grants made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and other federal government departments.
One can still look at the B.N.A. Act and argue that the federal government has no right in the field of higher education. Indeed the province of Quebec still takes that attitude. Quebec has received aid for its universities in a manner different from the other provinces, but I suggest that in the other provinces there is no real argument against this. Those other provinces quite willingly accept the money for technical and vocational schools, and quite willingly accept the money for their universities. More and more people in this country look upon section 92 as referring to elementary and secondary education which will remain within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but they look upon the whole field of higher education as something which the federal government is quite properly concerned with.
Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the federal government is operating schools and spending large amounts of money on education. However, these educational activities of the federal government are rather dispersed, and handled by quite a number of departments. The Department of Labour formerly handled the technical and vocational grants, which are now to be handled by the new Department of Manpower and Immigration. As I have mentioned, the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is involved in operating a whole educational system on its own. The Department of National Defence has a division which is concerned with education. The Department of Finance comes into the picture so far as the Canada student loans plan is concerned, and the Department of External Affairs through the external aid provisions is also involved with education.
I suggest that we ought to create a federal government agency-and I am not too concerned by what name it goes, whether you call it the federal office of education or the federal secretariat of education-into which all educational functions of the federal government will be brought, so that there may be some coherence to the whole program.
In addition to performing the functions which I have mentioned, of operating the
February 23, 1966
1694	COMMONS DEBATES
Proposed Federal Office of Education
schools of the federal government, consulting with the provinces and the universities concerning university and technical and vocational grants, I suggest that a federal office of education could serve as a clearing house of educational research in literature throughout Canada.
In the provinces in Canada co-ordination in educational research is going on, and new curricula as well as new teaching methods are being developed. However, there ought to be a clearing house where all these things can be brought together.
I should like to say a word about research. I have already said that in Canada some educational research is being carried on, although not nearly enough. We are behind many other countries in this respect. There was an organization in this country a few years ago known as the Canadian Council for Research in Education. This body was supported by several national organizations, including the Canadian Association of Professors of Education, the Canadian Association of School Superintendents and Inspectors, the Association Canadienne des Educateurs de Langue Frangaise, the Canadian Education Association, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation, and, as it was then called, the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges.
In a brochure recently published by the associations I have mentioned, it was pointed out just how far behind other countries Canada is with respect to educational research. May I quote briefly from the brochure:
But there is a growing concern in the educational world about the effectiveness and efficiency of our educational programs. One source of this concern is the increasing cost of education. Rising cost brings with it the inevitable question as to whether the two billion dollars Canadians are now spending on education are being put to the best possible use.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
However, a much more basic cause of our concern with efficiency is that we recognize that man's knowledge is accumulating at an accelerating pace. Thus the child of each succeeding generation must learn more and more rapidly, or he will become increasingly less capable of utilizing this accumulated knowledge. This acceleration in the child's learning will require a continuing improvement in the effectiveness of our school programs.
Speaking at a conference of the Canadian College of Teachers at Lac Beauport, Quebec, two years ago, Dr. Robinson of the Canadian

Council for Research and Education expressed this opinion-and I am reading from a report by the Canadian Press:
Many of the differences in education from province to province were not based on different philosophies, but simply on different rates of slowness in copying United States methods, he said.
He quoted mathematics as a subject in which Canadian education is five years behind the U.S.
We must, of course, profit where we can from American research,
But if Canada is to pretend to have an educational system with unique goals-as we surely do- it must follow that we develop an independent research program.
Otherwise, Canada confesses to being the intellectual beggar among the educationally advanced countries of the world.
I think there is ample evidence that educational research in Canada is behind that of the United States, and that we should be doing more than we are doing now in this field. The Canadian Council for Research in Education is, I am sure, performing a useful function. It is supported by the organizations which I mentioned a few minutes ago. I would suggest, however, that these are organizations with only limited funds at their disposal and that it would be fitting if an agency could be set up by the federal government which would recognize the importance of research in education, just as we recognize the importance of scientific research by the National Research Council.
I believe the federal government should recognize this and provide the financial support necessary to carry on the type of research into education which is really necessary in this country. I suggested earlier that there are educational activities in the educational field which are quite appropriate for the federal government. I suggested that a federal office of education should be established to handle those functions which pertain to the national defence schools, Indian schools, the granting of moneys for technical education, and so on. I am also suggesting that we should go further and set up an office for educational research. Whether the provinces wish to co-operate or not is, of course, up to them. It seems to me that education throughout Canada would profit from research into curricula, teaching methods and the psychology of learning. This information could be brought into one clearing house and then be made available to the whole country.
I realize that some agencies are trying to do this at the present time-the Council for Research in Education, the Canadian Teachers Association and, perhaps, the
February 23, 1966

Canadian Home and School Association. Nevertheless it seems to me this work would be more efficiently done by one agency to which all this information could be sent-an agency with the funds available to stimulate further research.
The situation in Canada is not very different from the situation in the United States, as far as the constitution is concerned. Education there is the responsibility of the individual states. Yet for many years the United States has had a federal office of education-an agency in Washington. The states have throughout carried on their own educational systems-there are 50 states with 50 educational systems-but there is also a central agency which tries to co-ordinate the work as best it can.
This idea that there should be a federal office of education in Canada was presented to the Prime Minister by a delegation from the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation in 1963. At that time the following report appeared in one of our newspapers. I quote from a Canadian Press despatch.
A parent-teacher delegation said Tuesday its proposal for a federal office of education has been endorsed in principle by Prime Minister Pearson.
The prime minister told the group, however, that the department could be established only if all provinces agreed.
The proposal was put to him by the 300,000 member Canadian Home and School Parent Federation, which also asked for federal-provincial cooperation in providing more resources for vocational guidance.
I would disagree with that statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). If the federal government wants to establish such an office to handle its own educational functions it has every right to do so. Whether or not the provinces wish to co-operate is another matter but I suggest many of them would wish to do so.
I think we should recognize the fact that the federal government is already deeply involved in education. When you spend more than $250 million a year in a particular field, you are involved in it. This involvement will grow in the course of the years. Certainly if the report of the Bladen Commission is carried out the federal government will be heavily involved in education. We might as well accept this situation and create an agency in Ottawa to carry out this function of the federal government as usefully and as efficiently as possible.


Mr. Aiken:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he see this office as a
Proposed Federal Office of Education separate department or as a branch of the proposed Department of Manpower?


Robert William Prittie: I did not suggest that a separate department should be established. I am not much concerned about titles. I am more concerned about the functions to be performed. I think that initially this office would be a branch of another department-a secretariat of some sort.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Proposed Federal Office oj Education interested in the growth and development of the schools of the nation, the major responsibility for the organization and financing of schools has been a state's function. In many instances the education system has become so decentralized that each school district has assumed major responsibility for the development of its schools. We have valued this decentralization, believing that it is important for every citizen in every community to be interested in the kind of schools his children attend. We have voted to tax ourselves at the state and local levels to maintain a high-level educational system and have been proud of the dedication shown by the lay boards of education who have given unselfishly that our American system might reach the level of its present accomplishments. Yet, at the same time we have been consciously aware of the fact that, with increased mobility of our nation's population and increased need for an enlightened citizenry, the federal government must play an increasing role in the further development of our educational opportunities.
I believe those words apply with equal force in Canada. We must recognize and respect the primacy of provincial jurisdiction in education. If Canadian education is to be effective, provincial education departments and powers must be strong. The alternative to that is surely an educational lag and a default of leadership, but the government should help, where help is wanted, by grants, information and advice. The federal government has a valid and vital interest of its own in education, a national interest in education.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its statement of policy for 1965-66, published last September, states at page 16 of that document:
While recognizing that educational institutions and their administration in Canada are under the specific jurisdiction of the provincial and local authorities, it is nevertheless asserted that education is and ought to be a matter of national concern and of direct interest to all Canadians.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) mentioned that parliament is now responsible for spending vast sums on education. I believe he mentioned an amount of some $250 million. However, according to Pierre O'Neil in La Presse, some $500 million is estimated to be the current federal expenditure on education.
Can the Canadian government or the provincial governments seriously talk of exclusivity in educational jurisdiction when education today involves this kind of public investment, this kind of involvement in every fibre of our society, our economy and our cultures? There is more than money at stake.
I believe that a federal office of education should co-ordinate the myriad federal programs in education, which the hon. member

has mentioned. I believe it should make its facilities available to assist provinces to gather information and make it available for the advancement of education in all parts of Canada.
We must recognize that there is a national interest to be served in education which is not necessarily the sum of provincial interests or identical with any particular provincial interest. The Economic Council of Canada has made the message loud and clear that there is unquestionably a national interest in education from an economic standpoint. Perhaps, in fact, there is no more vital national interest.
The second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada points out that "education is a crucially important factor contributing to economic growth and to rising living standards". That would be reason enough to coordinate our attacks on this national problem, but there is more to education than economics. There are people, their lives and livelihoods, their contributions in human terms to their families, their communities and their country.
What should be our goals as a nation to meet their needs in education? What needs have the provinces been unable to meet, or cannot be expected to meet? I can think of a number of areas in which federal initiative could be taken in an office of education such as the motion suggests-pre-school preparation of economically and culturally deprived children, children of minority groups, children of immigrants; orientation of immigrants of all ages to school, to work, to our society; highly qualified in their own countries but restricted by educational or professional requirements here; training of language teachers to raise the level of bilingualism wherever local education authorities want to do so in any part of Canada; training and retraining 'Canadians of any age, wherever they live, so that they may make the fullest use of their talents for the benefit of themselves and of Canada; adult education which recognizes education as a continuous process, continuously enriching lives, communities, provinces, and most of all our country. Mobility of teachers and students, of knowledge and ideas, as well as of labour is surely desirable in Canada.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
A nation's education cannot live and thrive in ten airtight compartments. It will suffocate in the grip of parochialism. It is suffocating, at least in so far as the national interest
February 23, 1966

is concerned. I think it is time we faced facts as Canadians, as provincial governments and as a federal government. It is time we tossed out the old shibboleths which have hobbled Canadian education for 99 years. Perhaps up until now we could afford it; but today we have a different society, a different economy, and a different nation in a different world. Education itself is different, it is in ferment.
In today's Canada we cannot afford to have education walled up, no matter how good each provincial system may be. Let us knock down the bureaucratic walls which plague Canadian education today. We hear talk of jealousy of sovereignty. Are those authorities which are jealous of their sovereignty also jealous of poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity for full participation by every citizen in educational progress. I suggest there may be jealousy among governments in the field of education, but I suggest also that these governments ask their people about education.
I believe that the people of Canada are not interested in arguments about sovereignty; they are interested in obtaining the fullest possible opportunity for every Canadian to develop his talent to the fullest. If we fail to develop national goals in education, if we fail to make significant progress toward those goals, the result will be to the detriment of Canada as a nation. What has been good enough for Canada in the past 99 years is not good enough today. Balkanized education will not serve Canada's needs in its second century.
I appeal, Mr. Speaker, for a new awareness of the need for a national focus on education, respecting provincial jurisdiction and earning provincial co-operation in meeting the challenge. I favour a federal initiative in the establishment of an office of education and I join the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond in respectfully taking issue with the view expressed by the Prime Minister, that no initiative should be taken without the agreement of the provinces. I favour a federal initiative in the establishment of such an office.
I hope that the provinces will co-operate in a spirit of mutual good will and mutual interest, and make the fullest and most productive use of such an office for the benefit of their citizens, and in the national interest; but I urge the establishment of such an office even if such co-operation and such interest is not forthcoming, for the purpose of more effectively carrying out the established func-
DEBATES	1697
Proposed Federal Office of Education tions and responsibilities of the Government of Canada to the people of Canada in the field of education.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes because I know quite a number of hon. members are most interested in this particular subject. I will try to say what I wish to say in a vey few minutes.
I think the need for the establishment of an office such as is proposed is so obvious that we should hardly need to be debating it. I would go further and say that the re-organization of the government which the Prime Minister proposed very recently very easily could have included, in a branch of the manpower department, an office to co-ordinate these efforts.
I support absolutely the motion in its general intent. The federal government has engaged in an encroachment in the field of education in three main areas, the first of which is in the vocational schools program, which was not really an encroachment because it did not make any effort to teach, but rather to provide financial assistance. There was a large amount of federal money spent. Second, the university grants to the provinces have been increased from time to time and now are expected to be $5.00 per capita. This is a very large and substantial federal expenditure. The third is research, which reaches across the whole field of education. We are involved in education, particularly in these three very important fields.
I do not believe there has been any question of the constitutional grounds about these three fields. In two other fields a reasonable case can be made for federal involvement in education, and that is post-secondary education at the university and vocational levels- and also in the matter of standardization of grading in elementary and secondary schools in Canada. I think this is very badly needed.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Last year I proposed a confederation student exchange for the centennial year which had as its objective the exchange of students between different parts of Canada for a full term of study, particularly students taking education at the secondary level. The centennial commission has never fully adopted this idea, although it has received general interest and support by various people and organizations as well as the government. As a result, the student exchange program was stepped
February 23, 1966
1698	COMMONS
Proposed Federal Office of Education up, although it has not gone tar enough. My complete plan was never put into effect.
When I did some research on this particular idea of student exchange I found a lack of standards in grading of elementary and secondary students across the country. In this regard I think the federal government could provide service by establishing an office to determine how best to standardize grading without in any way interfering with the rights of the provinces in the field of education. I see no reason why we could not provide some assistance in this way, particularly in view of the fact that with a constantly moving population, education in Canada is now a matter of national concern.
Mr. Speaker, I can foresee that part of the manpower requirement of this country will necessitate further federal involvement in this provincial field. However, in this regard we must be very careful, so long as the constitution remains as it is, not to go beyond what is strictly related to the federal field. Sometimes in our enthusiasm in relation to national co-ordination and effort we are inclined to step over the limits of what the constitution sets out as being federal jurisdiction. Our constitution still puts education under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and while we seem to be encroaching upon it from time to time as education becomes increasingly important and of national concern, we have to give due recognition to constitutional matters and should not go beyond them. I do not think that some system of grading in primary and secondary schools on a national level would be an encroachment. I do not think that any general effort related to manpower needs in Canada would be an encroachment on the provincial field.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few comments I wished to make. I hope the government will treat this as more than a routine motion and act on it post-haste.


Mr. Herman Laverdiere (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) on his motion which reveals the interest he bears the great cause of education in Canada.
I suppose it is difficult, if not impossible, for one who has made a career of teaching, one who has devoted years to teaching, not to be, even as an M.P., interested to the highest degree in this worthy cause, and I congratulate the hon. member on his praiseworthy intentions in presenting this motion.


Indeed, it is necessary to co-ordinate efforts by setting up a national centre for the exchange of information. New teaching methods are being developed regularly and are being tried out with a view to giving our young people a better education and to giving the greatest possible number of them the opportunity to develop their talents.
Particularly on this last point, there is no doubt that thousands of our young people get discouraged and drop out after a few failures when, in many cases, they are not to blame for such failures.
I think especially of the many failures, and I do not believe they are restricted to some colleges I know. In many cases, the numerous failures in high school mathematics and in other subjects are disastrous because of the inevitable consequences they entail. Students who have failed lose heart and give up the studies they could have pursued if more appropriate methods had been used.
However, I fail to see the advisability or the necessity for the federal government itself to establish such a central co-ordination office. I agree that there should be a certain reorganization of the financing provided by various departments of the federal government, but as concerns this research centre, if I understood the hon. member correctly, it would be a sort of centre where the principal organizations, the principal associations, the principal institutions of the country could pool their findings and exchange and co-ordinate research on such findings. I agree that it should exist. But why should the government assume the responsibility for such a centre, when, if my information is correct, a Canada Council for research on education was established two or three years ago.
I think that the work of the Canada Council, which might be given a little more freedom, should have the kind of financing that would allow it to carry on with the work already under way.
I am of the opinion that this council, in co-operation with various teachers, parent-teachers and even students associations, with specialized professors in contact with the Quebec planning bureau or the Ontario institute for studies on education and other provincial organizations, could ensure co-ordination and enable everyone involved to get information.
I believe the federal government already has enough, if not too much authority, in the field of education. We could go on discussing
February 23, 1966

and arguing for a long time on the constitutional aspects of education.
Nevertheless, specially for Quebec, I am convinced every possible effort should be continued to establish a system undergoing daily changes and Quebec's privileges should be jealously guarded, for they are largely the guarantee of the French Canadian people.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herman E. Laverdière: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the hon. member's remarks about the federal government entering the field of education. I am wondering whether the intent of the resolution really would harm provincial rights. I ask the hon. member whether the suggestion that the federal government establish a federal office of education and provide leadership in this field would not enhance the position of provincial governments with regard to education and would not really create any threat to the provinces.


Herman E. Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. friend, I do not think it is necessary, in fact I would not say that I fear new interference from the federal government in the field of education, but I do not see why the central government should deal with a particular field when there already exist associations and organizations which can undertake the work apparently referred to in this motion.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I see that I shall not have time to give my full views on the resolution put before the house, but I must say that I am opposed to the spirit and to a great deal of the letter of this motion.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Supply-Items Passed
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a certain bill:
An Act to extend the time for consideration of objections pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act with respect to the reports of commissions established for the decennial census taken in the year 1961.

Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the house leader could tell us what department we will take up next if we were to finish Justice tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: I hope the hon. member meant the word "when" instead of "if", when he was asking the question. When the Justice estimates are finished, we would expect tomorrow to call the Departments of Fisheries and Veterans Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can hope.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
Defence services-
15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force and $1,850,000 for grants to the town of Oromocto, $1,382,244,000.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
20. Operation and maintenance, $27,153,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,569,000.
30. To foster defence research in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence applied research programs, on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, $5,788,000.
35. Research satellite program-to provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States National Aeronautical and Space Administration and the Defence Research Board, $2,990,000.
40. Development, $21,640,000.
40d. Development, $9,300,000.
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 196S
Supply-Items Passed
Mutual aid-	Pensions and other benefits-
45. Contributions to infrastructure and the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $32,050,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $7,425,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account; provided by this vote, $24,625,000.
General-
48. To authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, the payment into a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of: (a) all revenues received during the current and subsequent fiscal years from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, and (b) revenues received during the current and subsequent fiscal years from the sale during the current fiscal year of surplus buildings, works and land not exceeding an aggregate amount of $5,000,000, and expenditures from the special account during the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to the approval of Treasury Board, for any of the purposes of the Department of National Defence, $1.
50. Civil pensions as detailed in the estimates and to authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan who were killed, payments to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organization, $7,153.
50d. Civil pensions as detailed in the estimates. $193.
National defence-
L30. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in completion of the physical development of municipal works and the further development of the Town's assets, $150,000.
L30b. To authorize in the current and subsequent fiscal years, under such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council prescribes, a capital assistance loan to the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick, to be covered by town debentures, for the purpose of assisting in the completion of the physical development of municipal works and the further development of the town's assets, $400,000.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 24, 1966