1966-02-02

INDUSTRY


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, according to the rules of the house, I tabled the annual report of the Department of Industry for the year ended March 31, 1965. Unfortunately a typographical error exists in the first paragraph on page 36. The paragraph should read:
Vessels built for the account of the federal or provincial governments, or floating structures which cannot be considered vessels in the conventional sense, will not be covered by subsidies.

Unfortunately, the same error appeared in the French translation of that report. The first paragraph of the French text, on page 37, should read thus:
Ces subventions ne s'appliqueront pas aux na-vires construits pour le compte des gouvemements federal et provinciaux et aux engins flottants qui ne sont pas comme des navires dans le sens reel du terme.



COTTON TEXTILES-RESTRICTION ON EXPORTS FROM HONG KONG

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: With the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of a recently signed memorandum of understanding between the Canadian and the Hong Kong governments under which Hong Kong has agreed to restrict certain cotton textile exports to Canada.
I believe it has been customary for such memoranda to be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings, and I should like to make that suggestion with respect to this memorandum.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisfer of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to table, as
requested yesterday, four copies in English and four copies in French of the report to the conference of ministers of the ad hoc technical committee on the health resources fund.
I should explain that at the request of the conference an appendix is not included in the report for public distribution because it contains a preliminary and not fully complete estimate of provincial needs in the capital field. With this explanation I should like to table the documents.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-112, to provide for the establishment of an Alaska-Yukon highway authority (Alaska highway).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Robert Norman Thompson: This bill calls for the establishment of an Alaska-Yukon highway authority which would provide an alternative to the impasse which presently prevents any workable agreement being made between the government of the United States and the government of Canada, an impasse which apparently is holding up the completion and paving of this important national highway project.
This bill provides for the establishment of a special authority which would permit cooperation among the various governments at different levels so as to facilitate the completion of such a highway and enable the costs to be shared. This is particularly important to us at the present time because the Alaska centenary coincides with the centenary of Canada. Action along these lines would certainly provide what could be an important international aspect of the centenary year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER


Robert Norman Thompson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-113, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.

February 2, 1966
Questions
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has been necessary to resubmit this bill, which has been approved by the house in committee and upon which the government promised action in the Speech from the Throne of the session before the present one.
The need for an ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner becomes more and more urgent with the continuing development of bureaucratic government. This bill has therefore been resubmitted this session so as to provide further for the protection and representation of Canadian citizens.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the objective of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition in producing a calendar for distribution and how many of these calendars were produced and distributed?
2.	Who designed the calendar in question?
3.	What was the cost?
4.	Was a competition held to select the design?
5.	Who printed the calendar, were tenders called and what was the cost of the printing?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The object of the count down calendar was as a promotional device to emphasize and to remind everyone of the ever decreasing number of days remaining before the opening of the exhibition. The calendar was sent to Canadian business, foreign business, to the newspapers, to potential sponsors to the exhibition, to foreign delegations and participants, etc. There were 15,300 count down calendars printed, of which 14,500 have been distributed.
2.	The designers were Paul Arthur Associates and Southam Specialized Marketing Services.
3.	Total cost of the calendar was $11,877.14 including federal sales tax and shipping charges.
4.	No. The design was the creation and unique idea of Paul Arthur Associates and Southam Specialized Marketing Services.
5.	The printer was Southam Specialized Marketing Services and the contract price was negotiated. Cost of printing including design, etc., was $10,528.50.


EXPO '67-SALARIES EXCEEDING $15,000
Mr. Coales: 1.	How many employees on the staff of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition receive salaries of $15,000 per year or more?
2.	What are the names of the recipients of these salaries and the duties of each individual?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. 89.
2.	Names and duties of recipients:
Executive: P. Dupuy, commissioner general; R. F. Shaw, deputy commissioner general; A. G. Kniewasser, general manager;
O.	C. S. Robertson, scientific adviser.
Internal Audit: R. E. Montpetit, chief internal auditor; R. E. Gobeil, head audit division.
Secretariat: J. C. Delorme, secretary and general counsel; J. Cournoyer, deputy director labour regulations; P. Buisson, deputy secretary-legal; R. Gareau, head solicitor- concessions div.
Finance and Administration: G. D. Rediker, Director of finance and administration; J. Bain, Deputy director finance; E. K. Preston, Deputy director administration; F. Weipert, Head procedure section; J. E. Benoit, Head insurance section; J. A. Laurendeau, Deputy director procurement; D. Bryant, Head construction procurement sect.; P. E. Firlotte, Deputy director personnel.
Installations: Col. E. Churchill, Director of installations; Col. L. J. Brown, Deputy director of installations; H. Protheroe, Head- schedules and reports division; G. Dozois, Deputy director theme exhibits; Capt. F. A. Pickard, Head man explorer division; C. Cass-Beggs, Head man producer division; G. Bertrand, Head man in community division; Dr. C. B. Pierce, Consultant-medical and life sciences; L. A. Leschack, Project officer theme; P. J. Pocock, Project officer theme; E. Fiset, Deputy director and chief architect; R. Papanek, Head architectural planning division; S. Staples, Head architectural structures division; N. Hay, Head design division; R. Blais, Head-audio visual section; A. Peters, Head special requirements section; A. Phillips, Head landscape section; R. M. Yeats, Head specifications section; J. Miller, Head theme pavilions section; K. Stanley, Head other pavilions section; G. Gagnon, Head layout section; G. Sarault, Deputy director and chief engineer; J. Baker, Head civil engineering division; D. W. Ferguson, Head
February 2, 1966

communications division; N. Gore, Head mechanical eng. section; D. Lachance, Head electrical eng. section; J. Crossman, Head communications eng. section; F. Rousseau, Deputy director and construction mgr.; V. McAuley, Head construction div. (head [DOT]office); G. Adams, Head construction div. (field); L. A. Hudon, Head construction permits section; B. Bowen, Head estimating section; P. A. Wood, Head contracts eng. section; A. Therien, Head construction service section; A. Dromlewicz, Head construction eng. section; R. Calvert, Head parks maintenance section.
Exhibits: P. De Beliefeuille, Director of exhibitors; R. Letendre, Deputy director; D. Giles, Director Canadian exhibits; Maj. Gen. E. C. Plow, Regional director-Halifax; A. Rowan-Legg, Regional director-Toronto; T. J. MacKinnon, Regional director-Vancouver; A. K. Stephens, Regional director-Winnipeg; K. Marshall, Liaison officer engineering; C. La-combe, Liaison officer engineering; G. Ban-nerman, Liaison officer special projects; E. M. Blanchard, Regional liaison officer-Winnipeg.
Public Relations:	Y. Jasmin, Directorpublic relations; P. P. Lafortune, Deputy director info, and publicity; G. Kennedy, Acting deputy director; M. Wood, Asst. mgr. group relations; B. Croll, Head publicity division; P. Break, Deputy director advertising and promotion.
Operations: P. De G. Beaubien, Director of operations; J. P. Kohl, Deputy director cone, and licensing; C. A. King, Head concessions and lie. control div.; M. Novek, Head restaurant concessions section; J. Pratt, Deputy director-producer of entert.; G. Hilker, Head programming division; D. Haber, Head theatre division; D. Dauphinee, Head- amphitheatre; J. Cote, Head-special events division; R. Garand, Head special days; J. H. T. Poudrette, Deputy director public safety; G. Houle, Head security and safety division; A. Mercier, Deputy director visitor services; J. Belanger, Head logexpo division; J. P. Lussier, Head advance admission sales div.; G. Hughes, Deputy director business development.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total estimated commitment of the federal government on trans-Canada highways and bridges being constructed in the province of Quebec from April 1, 1964, to the present time?
Questions
2.	What portion of this estimated commitment involves highways and bridges in the metropolitan area of Montreal and what proportion involves highways and bridges leading to St. Helen's island, the site of Expo '67?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. $63,799,000.
2.	$51,378,000 between Senneville and the Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine bridge-tunnel including the latter. No portion of the trans-Canada highway leads directly to St. Helen's island.


EXPO '67-FEDERAL EXPENDITURE IN 1965-66
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the anticipated expenditure for 196566 of the Canadian government's participation in the 1967 Exhibition?
2.	What is the breakdown of the anticipated expenditure?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. $4,300,000.
2. Construction and acquisition of buildings, $3,086,700; Exhibits and displays, $1,029,000; Advertising and publicity, $20,800; Special events, $20,000; Administration expenses, $143,500.


EXPO '67-EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Were new regulations imposed upon employees of Expo '67 with regard to expense accounts involving meals, travel, accommodations and entertaining?
2.	On what date were these new regulations imposed upon the employees and for what reason?
3.	What guide did employees of Expo '67 use prior to the new regulations being imposed?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. No. The original regulations were enacted in 1963, the first year in which the corporation was in business, and were incorporated in the policy and procedure manual of the corporation at that time.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.


HALIFAX-FEED GRAIN STORAGE IN HARBOURS BOARD ELEVATORS
Mr. Coates: How much space has the National Harbours Board guaranteed to feed grain importers in the maritime provinces in their elevators at Halifax?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National
Harbours Board advises that the answer to the question is 2,150,000 bushels.
5S6

February 2, 1966
Questions


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO TRAINING OF GERMAN TROOPS IN CANADA
Mr. Cowan: Is the Canadian government contributing financially toward the upkeep ol the West German military unit now stationed at Camp Shilo, Manitoba and, if so (a) in what amount (b) how long will such payments continue, and (c) under what arrangement or agreement are such payments being made?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, the West German Ministry of Defence has agreed to reimburse the government of Canada for the actual costs incurred on behalf of the test team conducting trials at Camp Shilo.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles: Questions


CANADA-RHODESIA TRADE
Mr. Allard: 1.	What have been the character and value ot yearly commercial exchanges between Canada and Rhodesia under the heading of imports and exports from 1960 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	Owing to the recent economic sanctions enforced against Rhodesia and in which Canada is taking part, what kind of Canadian and Rhodesian products are subjected to the sanctions?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. A complete record of domestic exports to Rhodesia for the years 1963 and 1964 has been published in the report Exports by Countries, January-December 1964 (Dominion Bureau of Statistics catalogue number 65-003) obtainable from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa, and available for reference in all public libraries and in the parliamentary library. A complete record of imports from Rhodesia in the same years has been published in Imports by Countries, January-December 1964 (Dominion Bureau of Statistics catalogue number 65-006), and is available in the same manner. Available detail for 1965 has been published in the January-June 1965 issues of Exports by Countries and Imports by Countries.
Prior to 1964 trade with Rhodesia was not recorded separately, but formed part of trade with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, along with trade with the successor countries of Malawi and Zambia.
2.	(a) A ban has been placed on exports of the following goods to Rhodesia: Arms and military equipment; petroleum and petroleum products.
(b)	A ban has been placed on imports of the following goods into Canada: tobacco of Rhodesian origin; sugar of Rhodesian origin; chrome ores and concentrates of Rhodesian origin; ferrochrome of Rhodesian origin; asbestos, unmanufactured, of Rhodesian origin; meats, sterile, canned, cooked, of Rhodesian origin.
(c)	Preferential tariff rates have been withdrawn from Rhodesian goods and they are now subject to the General Tariff.
(d)	Export credit guarantee facilities under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act have been withdrawn and insurance under that Act is not available for exports to Rhodesia.
(e)	All goods exported from Canada to Rhodesia are now subject to the requirement of an export permit.


PER CAPITA DEFICIT, U.S.-CANADA BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
Mr. Allard: What was the deficit per capita indicated by Canada in the balance of payments to the United States for the year 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada's bilateral current account deficit with the United States for the final quarter of 1965 is not yet available. However, the following table illustrates Canada's bilateral per capita deficit with the United States for 1964 and the first nine months of 1964 and 1965.
Whole First Year 9 months
Bilateral Current Account
Deficit* (Millions
of dollars)	1,800	1,286
Population
(Thousands) 19,440	19,361
Per capita deficit $92.6	$66.4
1965 First 9 months
1,416
19,705

* Excluding gold production available for export.


FEDERAL DEBT
Mr. Allard: What was the amount in dollars of the federal debt in 1964 and 1965?


Robert Henry Winters: March 31
Unmatured Debt 1964	1965
Bonds	16,510,097,029	16,838,214,179
Treasury Bills 2,230,000,000	2,140,000,000
Total:	18,740,097,029	18,978,214,179


CONFERENCE ON POVERTY
Mr. Allard: Regarding the federal-provincial conference on poverty which took place in 1965, what are the names and places of origin, by provinces, of the organizations and other bodies that were invited to take part in the discussions?


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No organizations or other bodies were invited to the federal-provincial conference on poverty and opportunity in 1965; all participants were government officials or consultants invited by federal or provincial governments in their individual capacities.

February 2, 1966
Questions


CONTROL OF USE OF EAVESDROPPING DEVICES
Mr. Orlikow: Is consideration being given to legislation to prohibit or control, under stringent conditions, the use of eavesdropping devices, particularly of the new electronic types?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Yes.


INVESTIGATION RESPECTING OSCAR WINKEL, CALGARY
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Has the investigation into irregular practices by Mr. Oscar Winkel, employee or former employee of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at Calgary, Alberta, been completed and, if so, what were the findings thereof?
2.	For what specific irregular practices was Mr. Winkel suspended?
3.	Was Mr. Winkel prosecuted under any law of Canada in connection with any such irregular practices and. if so, what was the result of any such prosecution?
4.	Is Mr. Winkel still employed by the government of Canada and, if so, at what location and in what capacity?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	Yes. The findings satisfied the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that Mr. Winkel had acted in an irregular manner in performing his duties as an immigration officer.
2.	The irregular practices for which Mr. Winkel was suspended pending an investigation involved the processing of applications for admission to Canada in a manner substantially contrary to the instructions governing the conduct of immigration officers.
3.	No.
4.	Mr. Winkel has not been employed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration since he tendered his resignation on April 26, 1962. The civil service commission has informed the department that they have been unable to locate any record showing that Mr. Oscar Winkel is employed by the government of Canada.


CANADA-U.S. AGREEMENT RESPECTING TEXTILE PRODUCTS
Mr. Allard: Regarding the commercial agreement signed by Canada and the United States on December 17, 1965, have new provisions been made concerning American textile products entering Canada and what are the main provisions of this commercial agreement?
[Mr. Matheson.l

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): The only commercial agreement signed by Canada and the United States on December 17, 1965, concerned adjustments in the U.S. tariff and did not deal with imports into Canada of textiles or any other products.
The negotiations were made necessary by revisions in the U.S. tariff in 1963, principally designed to bring the U.S. tariff language up to date. There were, however, a number of incidental increases as well as decreases and these affected the balance of concessions which have been negotiated under the GATT. The agreement on December 17, 1965, involved a number of compensating reductions in the U.S. tariff and a re-binding to Canada of schedules of United States tariff in the GATT.
The announcement of this agreement and a list of the concessions in the U.S. tariff is attached.


CANADA-U.S. TARIFF AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 17,	1965-The Hon.
Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that an agreement was signed in Washington today respecting U.S. tariff concessions on Canadian goods under the revised United States tariff schedules which became effective August 31, 1963. The agreement provides for rebinding of previous U.S. concessions negotiated with Canada under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The agreement also provides for reductions in U.S. tariffs on a range of products which accounted for approximately $32 million of Canadian exports to the United States in 1964.
For items covering over $20 million of Canadian exports in 1964, the agreement provides for reductions of up to 50 per cent in present rates of the U.S. tariff. These reductions are to be implemented over a four-year period commencing January 1, 1966. Canadian exports to the U.S. in 1964 of the main items benefitting from these cuts were: aircraft parts, $3.2 million (non-military); building boards, $2.7 million; vehicles such as house trailers and utility trailers, $2.5 million; metal structures e.g. buildings and transmission towers, $1.8 million; air conditioners and parts, $1.7 million; certain machinery parts e.g. pulleys, blocks, clutches, universal joints, chain sprockets, $1.5 million; tapes, cocks, valves, $0.9 million; radio, T.V.
February 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
and phonograph combinations, $0.9 million; game machines e.g. hockey games, $0.8 million. Further concessions of interest to Canada may result from similar negotiations between the United States and other GATT countries.
The agreement also covers reductions in the U.S. tariff on a further estimated $12 million of Canadian Exports. These concessions have already been implemented as a result of U.S. legislation enacted in October this year. These include the restoration of free entry for a number of agricultural machinery parts and of the 8J per cent rate for certain motor vehicle replacements parts. Original motor vehicle equipment already en-
Questions
ters duty free under the automotive program. Most of the reductions resulting from this legislation were made retroactive to August 31, 1963. Refund claims must be filed with the U.S. collector of customs concerned before February 5, 1966.
In announcing this agreement, Mr. Sharp indicated that these concessions should significantly ease the difficulties created for Canadian export sales to the U.S. market as a result of the U.S. tariff revision. He added that the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations going forward in Geneva should provide further opportunities to open up the U.S. market for Canadian exports, particularly in the manufacturing sector.
570	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2, 1966
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(The negotiated rates will be implemented in stages over four years-first cut to be
effective January 1, 1966.)
Tariff	Present	NegotiatedItem	Description	Rate	Rate202.54	Other drilled, treated or glued lumber or siding	10%	5%245.30	Face-finished hardboard	30%	5%245.90	Building boards, nspf; other boards of veg. fibres (including wood fibres)	5%	2.5%253.20	Crepe paper	1.50 per lb.-f	0.750 per lb.3.75% ad val.	+2% ad val.418.94	Other iron compounds	10.5%	5%419.76	Other nickel compounds	10.5%	5%420.54	Other selenium compounds	10.5%	5%513.34	Limestone chips and spalls, and stone, crushed or ground	200 short ton	100 short ton607.50	Ferrosilicon over 8%, not over 60% silicon content	0.80 lb. on	0.60 lb. onsilicon content	silicon content607.51	Ferrosilicon over 60 %, not over 80% silicon content	10 lb. on	0.60 lb. onsilicon content	silicon content646.92	Other locks and parts thereof	19%	15%652.98	Hangars and other buildings, bridges etc. of base metal n.e.s.	19%	9.5%660.10	Steam and other vapor generating boilers and parts	13.75%	11%660.22	Gas generators and parts, other than apparatus for generation of acetylene from calcium carbide	14%	11%661.20	Air conditioners and parts	11.5%	9.5%668.04	Stock treating parts for pulp and paper machines	13.5%	7%680.22	Other hand-operated taps, cocks, valves, etc.	22.5%	11%680.50	Pulleys, pillow blocks, shaft couplings and parts	19%	9.5%680.54	Chain sprockets, clutches, universal joints and parts	19%	9.5%685.42	Radio-television-phonograph combinations	15%	10%692.60	Vehicles, not self-propelled, nspf, and parts	16%	8%694.60	Aircraft and spacecraft parts	10%	7.5%734.20	Game machines, including coin operated, and parts	11.5%	9%

February 2, 196G

[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Allard: 1.	What is the total dollar value of goods Imported from Russia in 1965?
2.	What is the total dollar value of goods imported from communist China in 1965?
3.	What is the total dollar value of goods exported to Russia in 1965?
4.	What is the total dollar value of goods exported to communist China in 1965?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. The value of goods imported from Russia for the period January to August 1965 (the latest figures available) was $1,815,064.
2.	The value of goods imported from communist China	for	the	period	January	to
August 1965 was $10,314,086.
3.	The value of goods exported to Russia for the period January to October 1965 (the latest figures available) was:-
Domestic exports $88,463,961
Re-exports	 346,041
Total	$88,810,002
4.	The value of goods exported to communist China	for	the	period	January	to
October 1965 was:-
Domestic exports $82,994,652
Re-exports	 1,544
Total	$82,996,196


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WATER LEVELS
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is the low water level in the St. Lawrence seaway due to the use of water by the electric power plants of Ontario Hydro, particularly by the Cornwall plant?
2.	What are the argeements between the St. Lawrence seaway and the Ontario Hydro about the water level?
3.	What measures does the government intend to adopt in this situation?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Low water levels in the St. Lawrence seaway, when they have occurred, have not been caused by any of the power plants of Ontario Hydro.
2.	There are no agreements between the St. Lawrence seaway and Ontario Hydro in regard to water levels.
3.	Measures under jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission have been in effect for several years to regulate water outflows and levels of Lake Ontario and further comprehensive investigations under direction of the I.J.C. with respect to water levels in the whole great lakes system are in progress.
Questions


LOAN TO TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Mr. Allard: Has Canada recently granted a loan to Trinidad and Tobago and, if so, what is the amount and the conditions governing this loan?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Two loans have been extended to Trinidad and Tobago recently, one in the amount of $650,000 and the other for $400,000: The first was to finance the purchase of Canadian-made wire and transmission line equipment for a rural electrification scheme, and the second to finance the purchase of Canadian lumber for a low cost housing scheme. The loans were extended on terms providing a grace period on repayment of principal of 10 years, an over-all maturity of 50 years, including the grace period, and a service charge of three quarters of one per cent.


COST OF COMMUTED DEATH SENTENCES
Mr. Laprise: What is the estimated cost to the federal government of each death sentence commuted to a life sentence during the past ten years?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No such estimate has been made or would be feasible.
1English1


COST OF CARRYING OUT DEATH SENTENCES
Mr. Laprise: What was the cost of each of the death sentences carried out during the past ten years, including the cost of trial and execution?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This information is not available. Trials and executions are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.


QUEBEC ARDA PROJECTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What are the particulars of projects 5054, 5153, 5167, 5171, 5184, 5213 and 5224, carried out in the province of Quebec under ARDA?
2.	Where was each project carried out?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Project No. 5054: Development of land for blueberry production-Total shareable costs $114,773; federal contribution $57,386; townships of Proulx and Dalmas. Project No. 5153: Development of land for blueberry production-Total shareable costs $115,853; federal contribution $57,926.50; township of Dufferin. Project No. 5167: The construction of storage facilities to enable the local people to store

February 2, 1965
Questions
fish products during the winter season-Total shareable costs $53,681; federal contribution $26,840; Grande Riviere Centre, county Gaspe South. Project No. 5171: Enlargement and repair of cold storage facilities for fish-Total shareable costs $18,305.64; federal contribution $9,152.82; Cap-aux-Meules, Iles-de-la-Madeleine. Project No. 5184: Repairs and improvement to road for protection from flooding and erosion, giving access to good agricultural lands-Total shareable costs $890.00; federal contribution $445; St. Placide, Charlevoix county. Project No. 5213: This project involves 118 separate projects located in 46 counties. The answer to this part of the question was replied to in Question No. 507 under Votes and Proceedings No. 24, May 18, 1965. Project No. 5224: Development of land for blueberry production; Total shareable costs $27,315; federal contribution $13,657; township of Parent, Roberval county.
2.	See 1.


CANADA PENSION PLAN PUBLICITY
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the total cost of publicizing or acquainting the public of Canada with the Canada Pension Plan in 1965?
2.	What was the cost via newspaper media (a) total number of lines subscribed (b) total cost for newspaper advertising (c) number of daily newspapers used (d) number of weekly newspapers used?
3.	What was the total cost of television time used?
4.	What was the total cost of radio time used?
5.	What was the total cost of folders, brochures, etc.?
6.	What percentage of this total was published or mailed between September 1, 1965 and November 25, 1965?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Cost to both the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Revenue of the advertising campaign designed to acquaint the Canadian people with the details of the Canada Pension Plan for 1965, $1,964,596.
2. (a) The total number of lines subscribed: 6,605,863. In addition, 45 publications which calculate on the basis of pages instead of lines used 66 pages of advertising, (b) Total cost for newspaper advertising is $951,713. (c) 92 daily newspapers were used; (d) 693 weekly newspapers were used.


CANADA PENSION PLAN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the cost of the advertising campaign designed to acquaint the Canadian people with the details of the Canada Pension Plan and of this, how much was spent on daily newspapers, weekly newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, etc.?
2.	What advertising agency was in charge of this advertising campaign and what fee was paid to them?
3.	From what source was the money spent on this campaign paid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Cost to both the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Revenue of the advertising campaign designed to acquaint the Canadian people with the details of the Canada Pension Plan for 1965 $1,964,596.
(b)	Amounts spent on:
Daily newspapers	$ 352,625
Weekly	newspapers	327,775
Ethnic press	53,056
Farm publications	24,392
Religious publications	5,365
Consumer magazines	32,000
Production costs for
advertisements	156,500
Radio	Nil
T.V.	Nil
Total	$ 951,713
(c)	Four million "8 panel" bilingual folders: distributed to all householders (except Quebec):
Cost of printing	$ 42,735
Cost of mailing	73,272
Cost of distribution to Post
Offices	7,343
Costs of production	2,600
Total	$ 125,950
(d)	Four million 80 page explanatory bilingual two colour booklets distributed to all householders (except Quebec):
Cost of printing	$ 501,536
Cost of mailing	146,516
Cost of distribution to Post
Offices	9,852
Cost of production	24,001

Total
^February 2, 1966

<e) 750,000 booklets (English) and 10,000 (French) "Information for Employers"	$ 40,100
Costs of production	8,101
Total	$ 48,201
[DOT](f) 750,000 Contribution Tables (English) and 15,000 (French) for employers, including cost of production	$	61,000[DOT](g)) Special letters to employers with pay cheques insertions and posters	$	35,500
(h) Miscellaneous:
Art work and design for Canada Pension Plan symbol, registration card and posters; Social Insurance Number application forms; instruction sheets, labels, return envelopes, tab cards, re:	registration of selfemployed contributors; colour sketches and sample of Social Insurance Number cards	$	60,3272.	The agency in charge of the	advertising
campaign was MacLaren Advertising Company Limited and the gross fee of the agency is $151,510.
3.	The costs of the advertising campaign are paid from the consolidated revenue fund and chargeable to the loan account established by the Department of National Health and Welfare vote L 60 D, supplementary estimates (D) 1964/65 and are subject to reimbursement from the Canada Pension Plan account in accordance with that vote.


LABOUR CODE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money was spent on the advertising campaign to explain to the Canadian people the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?
2.	How much was spent on advertising in daily newspapers, weekly newspapers, radio, TV etc.?
3.	How many people coming under the jurisdiction of this code are now covered by its provisions?
4.	How many people covered by the provisions of the code are not yet covered because the company for which they work has been given a deferment?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Total amount spent on advertising was $185,329.09.
2. Daily newspapers, $43,665.62; weekly newspapers, $33,076.80; foreign language
Questions
press, $7,464.31; trade, business and union publications, $38,834.66; farm papers, $15,609; radio, $27,197.20.
Note: The total amount in (1) is the total of the items in (2) plus $19,481.50 for production costs.
3.	This information not available.
4.	577.


CANADIAN PACIFIC INVESTMENTS- INFORMATION FILED IN U.S.
Mr. Knowles: Is any department of the government of Canada in possession of copies of documents containing information filed by Canadian Pacific Investments Limited with the United States securities and exchange commission at Washington and, if so, what department or departments are in possession of such documents?


John Ross Matheson: The privy
council office and the Department of Finance have in their possession copies of documents containing information filed by Canadian Pacific Investments Limited with the United States securities and exchange commission in Washington.


QUEBEC HIGHWAY ROUTE 6- FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Keays: 1.	What amount of money has been paid by the government to the province of Quebec for the construction of the sections of highway on route 6 undertaken under special agreement with the province?
2.	What amount remains to be paid or undertaken to be paid under agreement or otherwise?


George James McIlraith: 1. No payments made to date.
2. $13,000,000


AGREEMENT WITH NEW BRUNSWICK MEDICAL SOCIETY
Mr. MacRae: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare enter into any agreement with the New Brunswick medical society for prorating their medical accounts to the extent of 10 per cent and, if so, on what date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. The Department of National Health and Welfare does, however, have a long standing arrangement with the Canadian Medical Association, whereby accounts for services rendered to sick mariners are paid on the basis of provincial schedules of fees less 10 per cent. The intent is to conform to a similar arrangement between the association and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

February 2, 1968
Questions


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many employees are there on the staff of the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	Who is the head of the printing bureau?
3.	How many departments are there within the bureau and who is the head or supervisor of each department?
4.	How long has each held such position?
5.	How did each obtain his supervisory capacity (a) by promotion (b) by ministerial or other appointment (c) by civil service competition?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	1,318 as of January 1st, 1966.
2.	Mr. C. B. Watt, general manager.
3,	4 and 5. Seven (7) principal functions or Services headed as follows:
Function	Head or Supervisor
(3)	(3)
Production Services (main plant)	F. E. Everett, Production Manager.
Production Services (outside plants)	J. A. Kiefl, Production Manager.
Engineering Services	F. Rogers, Plant Engineer.
Research and Industrial Engineering Services	M. Zaleski, Manager.
Financial Services	R. D. Mather, Comptroller.
Personnel Services	G. Neyron, Manager (Acting)
Special Assistant	J. B. Archambault
Date Appointed (4)	How Appointed (5)
16 August, 1960	Civil service competition.
1 April, 1957	Promotion.
18 August, 1960	Promotion.
15 July, 1965	Civil service competition.
30 August, 1965	Civil service competition.
1 December, 1962	Promotion, (acting).
8 May, 1961	Civil service competition.


PRINTING BUREAU PRODUCTION CONTROL
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What steps are taken to control the production rates and standards of each department in the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	Over the past five calendar or fiscal years, has any private industry type-setting, stereo-room or other work been done at the bureau?
3.	If so, how has this been undertaken (a) under contract (b) "by the job" (c) how have charges for this work been established?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Production rates and standards are controlled on the basis of engineered work standards developed by the methods and standards section of the bureau's research and industrial engineering services, using methods-time-measurement (MTM), and conventional time study techniques.
2.	No.
3.	See (2) above.


PRINTING BUREAU TYPESETTING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the Canadian government printing bureau made any purchases of automated typesetting equipment?
2.	When and what was the cost of this machinery to the taxpayer?
3.	By whom was the equipment manufactured and who was the supplier, if other than the manufacturer?
4.	What was the estimated annual savings (a) in production costs to be effected by this machinery (b) in man-hours (c) in lineage?
5.	What has been the bureau's experience with any such equipment?
6.	Is the bureau satisfied with this equipment and, if not, for what reason?
7.	To what extent has it been used and how does its actual operation compare with its potential?
8.	How was the equipment obtained, from whom, and upon whose recommendation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2. During fiscal years 1964-65 and 1965-66 at a cost of $260,451.
February 2, 1966

3.	The equipment was manufactured by Mergenthaler Linotype Company, New York, and Fairchild Camera and Instruments Limited, Plainview, Long Island, New York, and was supplied by Canadian Linotype Company, Toronto.
4.	(a) $141,000, (b) 57,000 hours, (c) None.
5.	Four months.
6.	Yes.
7.	It is now being used for parliamentary work and other composition requirements, following progressive training and experience. Its actual operation to date compares favourably with its potential.
8.	The equipment was purchased by the Department of Defence Production from the suppliers mentioned in (3) above, following standard tendering procedures.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION EXPROPRIATIONS, QUEBEC
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Since April 23, 1963, has the National Capital Commission expropriated any properties in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so. how many properties have been so expropriated, on what date or dates, and for what purpose or purposes?
Questions
3.	Has any direction, instruction, or advice been given, either formally or informally, to the National Capital Commission that no further expropriations are to be proceeded with in the province of Quebec, or that any proposed expropriation in that province would not be approved by the governor in council?
4.	If so, by whom was such direction, instruction, or advice given?
5.	On what date was it given?
6.	What precisely was the nature of the direction, instruction or advice?
7.	Has any consideration been given by the National Capital Commission to the effect upon National Capital planning of such direction, instruction or advice?
8.	If so, what conclusion has been reached by the National Capital Commission and has any submission been made, either formally or informally in respect thereto to the government?
9.	Does any such direction, instruction or advice apply to any other province except the province of Quebec?
10.	If so, to what province or provinces?
11.	If not, for what reason?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Total number of properties expropriated, 153.
(b) The answer to the remainder of Item 2, is set out in tabular form as follows:
Since April 23, 1963, the National Capital Commission has expropriated the following properties in the Province of Quebec:
	Number of	
Date	Properties	PurposeMay 8/63	19	To acquire the right-of-way for the northern entrance to the National Capital (New Provincial Highway No. 11).June 12/63	11	To provide the right-of-way for a parkway joining Leamy Lake Park and Gatineau Parkway along the Gatineau River.July 19/63	3	To provide the right-of-way for a parkway joining Leamy Lake Park and Gatineau Parkway along the Gatineau River.July 30/64	117	To acquire the right-of-way beside the Ottawa River for the parkway approach to the proposed bridge between Deschesnes and Britannia.Jan. 18/65	1	As part of the railway relocation program for the National Capital, to acquire the land required to construct a railway line between the Lachute and Maniwaki Subdivisions of the C.P.R. Company.Feb. 10/65	2	To acquire land required for the further development of Gatineau Park.3,	4, 5 and 6. On August 23, 1963, during the temporary absence of the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, an informal request was made from the Minister to the Commission asking it to temporarily withhold further requests for authority to expropriate
in the Province of Quebec until further instructions were given. On April 16, 1964, instructions were given that the National Capital Commission could feel free to again seek authority to expropriate properties in Quebec as the need arose.

February 2, 1966
Questions
7 and 8. Yes, During the period August 23, 1963 to April 16, 1964, there were discussions between the Chairman and the Minister as to the effect the temporary withdrawal of authority to expropriate might, if continued an undue length of time, have on completion of the Philemon Wright Parkway.
9.	Such instructions were temporary in nature only as indicated in the answers to questions 3 to 6 and applied only to the Province of Quebec.
10.	Not applicable.
11.	Not applicable.


RETIREMENT OF AIR FORCE OFFICERS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	In the last ten years, what has been the average compulsory retirement age for air force officers?
2.	In the last ten years, what has been the average period of survival of air force officers after compulsory retirement?
3.	In each of the last ten years, what has been the total paid by air force officers under the Defence Services Pension Act and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?
4.	In each of the last ten years, what has been the total disbursed under these acts to retired air force officers and their widows?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The compulsory retirement age for officers in the RCAF, by rank, as laid down in Queen's Regulations and Orders, is as follows:
Rank	Flying Non-flying
	Lists	Lists
Air Marshal	55	55Air Vice Marshal	55	55Air Commodore	53	55Group Captain	51	53Wing Commander	49	51Squadron Leader	47	49Flight Lieutenant	45	47Flying Officer	45	45and 4. Data is not	available	to answer
these questions.
The last actuarial report on the Canadian forces superannuation account was tabled 9 October, 1962.


FUNDED ACCOUNT, CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Does the 1960 Canadian Forces Superannuation Act provide for a funded account and, if so, what has been the balance of the fund at the end of each fiscal year since its establishment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act replaced part V of the Defence

Services Pension Act and section 3 of the act provides for the continuation of the former permanent services pension account in the consolidated revenue fund under the name of the Canadian forces superannuation account. Section 4 of the act provides for the members contribution to the account. Section 24 of the act provides for interest and government contribution to the account.
The balance of the account at the end of each fiscal year since its establishment was: 31 March 1960, $1,053,010,906; 31 March 1961, $1,155,332,721; 31 March 1962, $1,279,239,154; 31 March 1963, $1,605,796,692; 31 March 1964, $1,821,524,902; 31 March 1965, $2,028,122,460.


RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION, ELLIOT LAKE-BANCROFT AREAS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the Government of Ontario approached the federal government concerning the radioactive pollution of the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas and, if so, what requests were made and what action has been taken?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes. A request was received late last year for a meeting of senior officials of the two governments to consider a report on radioactive pollution of the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas prepared by a special committee of Ontario deputy ministers issued last autumn and to co-ordinate federal and provincial efforts to control radioactive pollution in these areas.
One meeting of senior officers has already been held and discussions are continuing on these subjects.
It should be noted, moreover, that discussions have been going on for the last 18 months between federal and provincial technical officers and with the mines concerned and considerable improvement has already been made in the situation.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION INTO CEMENT COMPANIES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act ever undertaken an investigation of the activities of Canada Cement Co. Ltd., Standard Paving Co. Ltd., or Lake Ontario Cement Co. Ltd., and, if so, was any action taken as a result?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: The general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published. However, Standard
February 2, 1966

Paving Limited and six other companies were the subject of allegations by the director under the Combines Investigation Act and this culminated in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission relating to the supply, transportation and application of asphalt mixes used in the paving and repair of municipal streets in the cities of Ottawa and Eastview, Ontario, and Hull, Quebec. The report and evidence have been referred to counsel to consider whether the evidence warrants prosecution proceedings.


TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, HAMILTON POST OFFICE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	How many people had temporary employment, full or part time, with the Hamilton post office at Christmas, 1965?
2.	What was the minimum wage paid to (a) full time workers, and (b) part time workers?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. Christmas helpers are not considered as either full time or part time. They are employed on an as required basis for periods normally not exceeding eight hours per day and which could be less than eight hours a day.
1451 Christmas helpers were employed in the Hamilton post office during the Christmas period 1965.
2. (a) and (b) Christmas helpers were paid at the minimum rate of $1.25 per hour.


FREE C.B.C. NETWORK TIME TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How much time did the C.B.C. allocate free of charge to each political party on the two national networks during the official campaign period for the 1965 federal election?
2.	How much money does such free time represent according to the rates in effect at that time? [Translation]


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: During the official campaign period for the 1965 federal election, the C.B.C. allocated 3 hours and 40 minutes of network free time on each of its two national radio networks and 5 hours and 30 minutes of network free time on each of its two national television networks. Distribution among the parties was as follows:
Radio:	Liberal, 1.15 hours; P.C.,	1.05
hours; N.D.P., 40 minutes; Social Credit, 20 minutes; Ralliement des Creditistes, 20 minutes.
Television: Liberal, 1.52$ hours; P.C.. 1.37? hours; N.D.P.,	1.00 hour; Social Credit,
30 minutes; Ralliement Creditistes, 30 minutes.
Questions
2. The C.B.C. does not sell time for political broadcasting and does not normally attempt to place a monetary value on such broadcasts. However, if current network rates were applied to the hours of broadcasting listed in part 1 the cost of network time and lines of microwave facilities would be: English Radio Network, $25,094.00; French Radio Network, $10,799.00:	English Television Network,
$130,592.00; French Television Network, $39,811.00.


SALE OF FRESH WATER TO U.S.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Are talks at present being held with the United States government in relation to the possible sale of fresh water to the United States?
2.	What is the official position of the government of Canada in regard to this?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2. Clearly our own future requirements must be determined before we could give any thought to exporting water to the United States. Of course, there could be no export without the concurrence of the province or provinces concerned. I stress, however, that we have received no approach from the U.S. government on this subject.


DORION REPORT-CHARGES LAID
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Have any charges been laid by the Minister of Justice stemming from the Dorion commission report?
2.	What charges are expected to be laid?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Charges have been laid at the instance of the provincial crown attorney at Ottawa against Raymond Denis under sections 119 and 368 of the Criminal Code.
2. It is not the practice to discuss charges to be laid.


INFLATIONARY TRENDS IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is the government aware and concerned about the possibility of inflationary trends in construction prices in this country?
2.	If so, what action is the government planning to take about any such trends?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has for some time been aware of developing cost trends in the construction industry. On August 2, 1965, the Prime Minister announced a number of measures to stretch out the excessive demands

February 2, 1966
Questions
being placed on the construction industry in 1965 and 1966 as a means of sustaining a steady rate of economic growth throughout Canada. These measures included deferral by the federal government of a number of capital construction projects, especially in the large metropolitan areas. In addition, and following consultation with provincial governments, the federal government proposed amending three acts which will allow provincial and municipal authorities to defer construction of several types of projects past the date at which certain federal contributions would have expired. These projects are related to technical and vocational training schools, the trans-Canada highway and sewage treatment systems.
The policy of the government respecting construction was reiterated at the meeting of Ministers of Finance and provincial treasurers on December 9, 1965 and again in the Speech from the Throne on January 18, 1966.


SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS UNDER ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS ACT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Have any supplementary agreements been entered into by the government of Canada and the governments of any of the provinces pursuant to clause 3 of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act being chapter 54 of the Statutes of Canada 1964-65?
2.	If so, with what province or provinces and in respect to what programs covered by the said act?
3.	What abatement of income tax has been made in favour of any signatory province with respect to each established program covered by any such agreement and what is the estimated yield of any such abatement?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Yes.
2.	The province of Quebec. The supplementary agreements entered into cover all the programs listed in schedule I of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
3.	The amount of the income tax abatement and the estimated yield of the abatement for the 1965 taxation year are as follows: (a) Hospital insurance program, 14 points, $104,594,000; (b) Special welfare program, 4 points, $29,884,000; (c) Technical training program, 1 point, $7,471,000;	(d)
Health grants program, 1 point, $7,471,000.


FOREIGN DEBTS OWED TO CANADA
Mr. Ormislon: What loans or other indebtedness is owed the government of Canada by foreign countries, foreign nationals, and foreign institutions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Loans to Foreign Government (as at January

21, 1966): U.K. Financial Agreement Act, 1946 United Kingdom, $1,078,087,385.60.
Loans under the Export Credits Insurance Act, Part II: Belgium, $25,377,000; France, $67,600,000; Netherlands, $32,130,000.
Special loans to Colombo plan countries to finance the purchase of wheat and flour from Canada: Ceylon, $564,624.67; India, $9,428,571.35.
Special loan assistance for developing countries (1), $1,154,115.35.
Miscellaneous loans and advances:	India-for purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts, $7,561,309.98; United States-in connection with Columbia River Treaty, $187,191,661.24; Inactive loans (2): China, $49,426,117.50; Greece, $6,525,000; Romania, $24,329,262.
Loans to Foreign Institutions (as at January 21, 1966): Bank of International Settlements Non-interest bearing deposit made under the terms of the agreements providing for the establishment of the bank, $272,785.84; United Nations: Working capital advances and loans to the United Nations and the specialized agencies (including United Nations Bonds-$5,860,336.95), $7,217,736.36.
Loans to Foreign nationals (as at January 21, 1966): China, Ming Sung Industrial Ltd. (3), $14,470,310; Net outstanding balance of financing agreements under Section 21A of the Export Credit Insurance Act. $113,299,232.59.
(1)	Under this program commitments amounting to $30,637,900 have been given to the following countries: Ceylon, $1,000,000; Jamaica, $1,625,000; Nigeria, $3,500,000; Pakistan, $23,362,900; Trinidad and Tobago, $1,150,000.
(2)	These loans are not currently revenue-producing or realizable.
(3)	Arising from a loan in 1946 by Canadian chartered banks to Ming Sung Industrial Ltd. and guaranteed under part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act. The company defaulted on the loan in 1951.


COMBINES REPORT ON TIRES, ETC.
Mr. Mather: When may a government decision be expected on the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the marketing of tires, batteries and accessories?


Guy Favreau: It is expected that an announcement concerning this matter will be made in the near future.
February 2, 1966


AMALGAMATION OF P.F.R.A. AND P.F.A.A. OFFICES
Mr. Ormision: Have any representations been made to the Minister of Agriculture or his officials regarding the amalgamation of the offices of P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. and, if so, by whom and for what purpose?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: No representations have been made to the Minister of Agriculture or his officials for the amalgamation of the offices of P.F.R.A. and


P.F.A.A. EMPLOYEES LEAVING FORESTRY DEPARTMENT
Mr. Ormiston: What are the names, classifications and salaries of all graduate foresters, entomologists and pathologists who have left the employment of the forestry department since April 22. 1963?


Maurice Sauvé: 
FILM BOARD MATERIAL FOR POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ormiston: Have National Film Board facilities been used for the preparation or screening of films or film material for any political party, political organization or political representative since April 22, 1963?
Answer: No.


TRANSFER OF POWERS FROM TREASURY BOARD COMPTROLLER
Mr. Ormiston: Have any responsibilities, powers, duties and functions been transferred from the comptroller of the Treasury Board since April 22, 1963, and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Nil.


SALE OF CANADIAN ARSENALS PLANT
Mr. Caouetie: Has Canadian Arsenals Limited sold its plant at Salaberry and, if so, (a) why was the plant sold
(b)	what was the price of the sale (e) was the price set by experts (d) what were the advantages of the sales for the crown corporation (e) was it the board of directors who decided to sell the plant (f) was the decision approved by the governor in council (g) does the corporation intend to sell other plants (h) what are the terms of payment (i) were there any tenders and, if so (i) who were the tenderers (ii) what was the amount of each tender (j) to whom was the plant sold (k) what criterion was followed in the choice of the purchaser?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. (a) To relieve the Crown of the cost of maintaining the plant solely for military purposes, to increase employment, and to stimulate the economy of the area, (b) $1,757,000.
(c)	The price was established by negotiation between the purchaser and the Departmen* of Defence Production, (d) A condition of the sale was the retention of military capability. The Crown was, therefore, relieved of the cost of maintaining such capability, (e) The decision was taken by the Department of Defence Production and concurred in by the

February 2, 1966
Questions
Board of Directors, (f) Yes. (g) The Department is considering a proposal relative to another plant, (h) Cash, (i) The offer for sale was advertised publicly and only one tender was received, (i) Canadian Industries Limited, Montreal, P.Q. (ii) $800,000 subsequently amended by negotiation to $1,757,000. (j) Canadian Industries Limited, Montreal, P.Q. (k) Price, retention of military capability, and planned commercial utilization and expansion of the plant's capability.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT LEGALIZING LOTTERIES
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Does the government intend to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of legalizing lotteries m Canada?
2.	If so, when will this be done?
3.	If not, what are the specific reasons?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1,
2 and 3. The government has undertaken to consider amendments to the lotteries and gaming sections of the Criminal Code, including suggestions for state lotteries, and is presently doing so but no conclusions have been reached.



CANADIAN MONEY SUPPLY

['The total expenditure to December 31, 1965, by the federal government on the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project is $106,029,378. This sum includes the shareable and non-shareable costs. On the shareable portion, the province of Saskatchewan has repaid Canada its obligation in the amount of $19,877,100.']
Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	At March 31, 1965 the chartered banks held
$36 million of coin in Canada and $351 million of Bank of Canada notes. At the same date as shown by the Bank of Canada statistical summary the amount of coin outside banks was $232 million and the amount of Bank of Canada notes outside banks was $1,938 million.
2.	A commonly used calculation of the money supply is total Canadian deposits of the chartered banks less items in transit plus notes and coin outside banks. This figure was $18,440 million at March 31, 1965.
3.	The total assets of the eight chartered banks at March 31, 1965 were: Bank of Montreal $4,787 million; The Bank of Nova Scotia $3,149 million; The Toronto-Dominion Bank $2,650 million; The Provincial Bank of Canada $522 million; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $5,750 million; The Royal Bank of Canada $5,911 million; Banque Canadienne Nationale $975 million; The Mercantile Bank of Canada $161 million. Total: $23,905 million.



Mr. Caouette: What amounts, under the fiscal arrangements, has Canada paid to each of the four Atlantic provinces during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act and its successor, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, Canada has paid to each of the Atlantic provinces the following amounts for the fiscal years specified:
Fiscal years ending March 31	Newfound- land $	Prince Edward Island $	Nova Scotia $	New Brunswick $1960	27,516,519	6,889,963	39,444,809	33,798,2381961	27,959,535	7,302,159	39,742,439	34,249,1221962	27,578,048	7,280,665	39,816,660	33,733,1711963	32,418,624	6,726,837	33,794,565	27,338,2841964	33,760,800	7,392,600	31,842,120	27,915,7301965	37,349,230	9,122,750	40,270,880	35,865,060
IMr. Drury.]
February 2, 1966


EGG PRODUCTION
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What has been the production of eggs during the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 to date (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	Does Canada import eggs or export them, and, if so (a) what is the amount of these transactions (b) with what countries does Canada do business?


Robert Henry Winters: 1.
Production of Eggs in Canada and the Provinces, 1963, 1964, 1965*
Jan.-Dec.	Jan.-Nov.
1963	1964	1964	1965
Canada	417,920 437,906 398,634 393,943
P.E.I.	4,158	4,079	3,740	3,657
Questions
Jan.-	-Dec.	Jan.-	-Nov.1963	1964	1964	1965N.S.	19,305	18,278	16,730	16,820N.B.	9,294	9,713	8,900	8,555Que.	66,182	71,520	64,597	67,685Ont.	170,032	177,023	161,229	156,160Man.	37,560	42,878	38,764	39,205Sask.	29,142	28,089	25,594	23,493Alta.	36,938	38,574	35,281	34,031B.C.	45,309	47,752	43,799	44,337
*Figures quoted are in thousands of dozens. Note: Figures for 1966 are not available.
2.	Available statistics on exports and imports of eggs during 1963, 1964 and 1965 are shown in the following tables.


AVAILABLE STATISTICS ON EXPORTS OF EGGS DURING THE YEARS 1963-1965 ARE AS FOLLOWS
[Stage Direction]
Export
Class
Number	Description
53-09 Eggs, hatching
Country
United Kingdom....
Germany West	
Italy	
Spain	
Switzerland	
Argentina	
Peru	
Bermuda	
Barbados	
Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba	
United States	
Jan.-Oct. 1965
1983	1964	(latest figures available)Quantity '000	Value $'000	Quantity '000	Value $'000	Quantity '000	Value $'000doz.	doz.	doz.	*	i	nil	nil	i	912	10	7	32	25	80nil	nil	1	2	21	69"	nil	nil	1	11	3	1	3	1	11	5	nil	nil	nil	nilnil	"	"	1	*	u	«<	nil	nil16	13	38	32	30	271	1	nil	nil	nil	nil19	125	249	255	"	486255	533	319	492	297	
Totals.
691
816
673
53-19 Eggs in the shell, n.e.s..
doz.	doz.
United Kingdom	
15	7	n}}Norway	
ni'	n''Switzerland	
52	20^British Guiana	
-	"Bahamas	
nilBermuda	
77	37	41Barbados	
11	."Jamaica	
n"	n"Leeward and Windward	
"	JTrinidad and Tobago	
93	47	182Netherlands Antilles	
2	1	""Puerto Rico	
ml	mjSt. Pierre and Miquelon	
2	J	'United States	
738	263	1,002Totals	
990	382	1,614
nil
6
nil
80
nil
3
doz.
nil
nil
7
nil
nil
6
nil ___*
nil
3
nil
nil
2
594
79
COMMONS DEBATES	February 2, 1966
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Export Class Number	1963	1964	Jan.-Oct. 1965 (latest figures available)Description	Country	Quantity Value '000 $'000	Quantity '000	Value $'000	Quantity Value '000 $'000lb.	lb.	lb.	53-59	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen dried.. United Kingdom	
8	12	23	34	nil	nilSweden	
1	1	nil	nil	«Republic of South Africa	
1	2	"	u	84	94British Guiana	
1	1	2	2	1	1Trinidad and Tobago	*	1	nil	nil	*	1Cuba	
3	5	u	«	nil	nilSt. Pierre and Miquelon	*	*	*	i	*	*United States	
1	*	nil	nil	nil	nilTotals	
15	22	25	37	85	96lb.	lb.	lb.	53-69	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen, frozen	or otherwise prepared n.e.s	
United Kingdom	
174	42	nil	nil	nil	nilJamaica	
nil	nil	8	4	n	7United States	<<	"	79	6	74	4Totals	
174	42	87	10	85	11
* Amount too small to be expressed (less than $500.00)
February 2, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
1963 Import Class Number	1963	1964	Jan.-Aug. 1965 (latest figures available)	Description	Country	Quantity '000	Value $'000	Class Number	Quantity '000	Value $'000	Quantity '000	Value $'000doz.	doz.	doz.	2325	Eggs in the shell	United Kingdom	
Denmark	
Netherlands	
Hong Kong	
Taiwan	
United States	* 	* 49 1 .... 8,057	nil 1 	,* 34 1 5,078	53-19	440 nil nil 56 nil 1,385	88 nil nil 35 nil 2,548	391 nil nil 43 nil 1,562	105 nil nil 25 nil 2,462Totals	.... 8,107	5,114	1,881	2,671	1,996	2,592lb.	lb.	lb.	13 nil nil 2762327	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen, dried.	United Kingdom	
Netherlands	
China, Communist	
United States	1 	* 21 186	1 	* 15 220	53-59	1 nil 1 252	1 nil 1 308	14 nil nil 266	Totals	208	236	254	310	280	289lb.	lb.	lb.	2326	Eggs, whole, yolk or albumen, frozen or otherwise prepared, n.o.p	United Kingdom	
Taiwan	
Hong Kong	
Australia	
United States	.... nil 3 	* 20 17	nil 1 	* 7 9	53-69	nil nil 1 nil 6	nil nil 	* nil 5	22 nil nil nil 98	4 nil nil nil 47Totals	40	17	7	5	120	51
Amount too small to be expressed (less than $500.00)
584	COMMONS DEBATES	February 2, 1966
Questions
February 2, 1966

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 135.-Mr. Caouette:
1.	During the past three years, has the governor in council or the designated minister given, within the meaning of section 3(9) of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, any instructions to the said corporation?
2.	If so (a) what were these instructions (b) has the corporation compelled with them?
3. Is it the intention of the government to amend the act so that these instructions be contained in the annual report?
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	This suggestion has not been considered by the government.


MEDICAL REHABILITATION CENTRE, VIET NAM
Mr. Winkler: 1.	Did the government of Canada request a study to be made in regard to the establishment of a Medical Rehabilitation Centre to care for civilians in Viet Nam and, if so (a) what are the names of the people who participated in this study (b) what was the content of the report (c) were the services of such a team of medical personnel made available to the government?
2.	Does the government now intend proceeding with the establishment of such a centre, and if not, for what reason?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes. (a) Dr. Gustave Gingras; (b) An outline of the type of rehabilitation centre which might usefully be established and its requirements in respect to personnel, materials, and equipment; (c) If arrangements for this project can be concluded with the Vietnamese authorities, it is expected that the required personnel can be recruited.
2.	The second part of the question has been answered in the answer to subpart (c) of the first part.
REPRESENTATION COMMISSION EMPLOYEES Question No. 147.-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
1.	What are the names of all members of the staff excluding those exclusively stenographic or clerical, employed by or with the authority of the representation commissioner to assist him and to assist the various electoral boundaries commissions in the work of redistribution?
2.	What, in detail, is the experience of each such person, specifying his or her age, education, previous employment, knowledge of the geography, history, tradition or other local factors affecting the electoral districts in respect of which he or she worked and specifying as well all other qualifications for the role to which he or she was appointed?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No one was employed by or with the authority of the representation commissioner to assist the various electoral boundaries commissions in the work of redistribution. Whenever requests were made by a commission for the services of any member of the staff of the representation commissioner, the services of such member were made available to that commission. Mr. A. J. Lineger was employed as a supervisor by the representation commissioner on December 23, 1963, to assist him in the work of redistribution. At the request of the electoral boundaries commission for Ontario, the services of Mr. Lineger, whenever required, were made available to such commission.
2.	Mr. A. J. Lineger, age 55; education: high school and one year university. Employed from July, 1928 to August, 1961, on the staff of the Coca-Cola Company Limited of Ottawa, except for service in the Canadian army from July, 1942 until March, 1946, when discharged with the rank of sergeant in the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps. Employed from April 26, 1962 to December 22, 1963, on the staff of the chief electoral officer as supervising clerk, and from December 23, 1963, to date, on the staff of the representation commissioner. During his period of employment in the chief electoral office, Mr. Lineger demonstrated to the chief electoral officer that he possessed the qualities and ability to fill the position of a supervisor in the representation commissioner's office. Mr. Lineger, as in the case of all members of the staff, acquired knowledge of the work of the new method of redistribution while on the job.


ONTARIO BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	In what places did the electoral boundaries commission for Ontario hold public hearings?
2.	On what date and at what hour was each such hearing held?
3.	What members of the commission attended each such hearing?
4.	What staff of the commission attended each such hearing?
5.	Was any transcript taken of the proceedings of each such hearing?
6.	If not, what precisely was the nature of the record made of the proceedings at each such meeting and by whom was it made?
7.	By what method were members of the commission who absented themselves from any of such hearings informed of the nature of the representations made by persons appearing before the commission?

February 2, 1966
Questions
8.	Are any memoranda or other documents which may have been prepared by members of the commission who were present at any such meetings to inform their absent colleagues now available to be laid on the table of the House of Commons so that members of this House may know whether the commission actually gave any attention to representations made to it?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the information sought in this question. Under section 10 of the act the commissions are not agencies of Her Majesty. Reports of the commissions are made directly to the House of Commons.
PUBLIC HANGMAN Question No. 150


Mr. McCleave:: Does the government of Canada pay a yearly retainer to any Canadian for services as public hangman?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No.


INAUGURATION OF FLIGHTS TO CARIBBEAN
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did Air Canada recently inaugurate regular flights to Bermuda and the Caribbean from Halifax international airport and, if so, on what date, and who were the complimentary passengers on any such flight?
2.	Did any members of parliament of the last or present session make such a flight and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Did the President of Air Canada or his office make available a certain number of seats on said flight, to the Minister of Transport and, if so, to whom did the minister direct such invitations?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes; departed December 3, 1965, returned December 7, 1965; The guest list was as follows: V. A. Ainsworth, president, Newfoundland Board of Trade; J. D. Allingham, manager, Allingham's Travel Agency; R. Armitage, assistant manager, Maritime Transportation Commission; W. S. Bird, chairman, New Brunswick Development Corporation; Hon. C. H. Ballam, Minister of Labour, government of Newfoundland and Labrador; R. Bassett, manager, Bermuda Trade Development Board; R. MacD. Black, publisher, Amherst Daily News; J. Braddock, managing editor, Atlantic Advocate; J. Bray ley, bureau chief, Canadian Press; F. Brooks, manager, Maritime Travel Service; S. Bujold, managing director, L'Evangeline; J. V. Butler, president, VOCM radio; G. C. Cherry, Cherry's Travel Service; W. H. Conrod, photographer; R. Costello, president, Telegraph-Journal and Times Globe;

R. Crawford, Fundy Shipping Limited; W. V. Creaghan, president, Moncton Board of Trade; G. A. Cromwell, general manager, CHSJ Radio and Television; J. M. Crosby, chairman, Maritime Transportation Commission; L. C. Currie, publisher, Daily News;
R.	E. Day, Guy R. Day and Son; J. H. Delaney, United Mine Workers of America; M. Doogue, manager, Annapolis Valley Travel Service; R. D. Duchemin, publisher, Cape Breton Post; L. C. Earle, director, Harvey's Travel Agency; F. Fillmore, freelance; W. W. Fowler, regional sales manager, Air Canada; A. Frampton, president, Central Newfoundland Chamber of Commerce; D. Frost, manager, Central Agencies; W. F. Galgay, regional director, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; A. W. Gaudet, president, Charlottetown Board of Trade; G. C. Goode, regional operations manager, Air Canada; W. J. Hancox, publisher, Guardian and Patriot; H. S. Haslam, general manager, coal operations, Dominion Steel Corporation; J. M. Herder, president, The Evening Telegram; H. Holland, president, Stephenville Chamber of Commerce; B. W. Isner, general manager, Times and Transcript; C. Jamieson, general manager, CJON Radio and Television; E. G. Jarvis, president, Halifax Board of Trade; R. A. Kellough, manager, Blenus Travel Service;
S.	R. Kennedy, regional director, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; A. J. Kenny, manager, Harvey's Travel Agency; H. J. Lam, manager, Atlantic Travel Service; J. A. Lenahan, regional controller, Department of Transport; R. V. Lenihan, manager, Moncton Travel Agency; C. Linkletter, Linkletter Travel Agency; R. Lockhart, managing director, CFBC Radio; F. A. Lynds, president, CKCW Radio and Television; A. B. MacDonald, president, Sydney Board of Trade; F. MacDonald, president, CJCH Limited; G. A. MacDonald, freelance; R. MacDonald, J. A. Young and Son; D. Macintosh, vice president, Fraser and Hoyt Travel Service; I. Mac-Keigan, chairman, Atlantic Development Board; J. G. McFarlane, manager, Harvey's Travel Agency; Hon. A. B. MacRae, Minister of Agriculture, Province of Prince Edward Island; W. J. McCall, city editor, Halifax Herald; G. R. McGregor, president, Air Canada; W. McKay, general manager, The Western Star; J. L. McKenna, president, Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association; F. McQuarrie, president, Summerside Board of Trade; E. R. Mathers, manager, I. H. Mathers and Son Limited; J. W. E. Mingo, chairman of the port of Halifax commission; R. S. Morton,
February 2, 1966

publisher, Dartmouth Free Press; D. Mosley, manager, H. D. MacLeod Agency Limited; J. Mungall, publisher, Journal-Pioneer; C. N. Murray, general manager, steel operation, Dominion Steel Corporation; J. Murphy, president, Truro Daily News; Dr. N. Murphy, president, CFCB Radio; D. M. Neill, president, CFNB Radio; J. O'Dea, president, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council; V. DeB. Oland, past president, Canadian Chamber of Commerce; P. A. Outhit, freelance writer; A.
T.	Parkes, secretary manager, Maritime Provinces Board of Trade; W. L Patterson, sales manager, CFDR Radio; O. Pulsifer, assistant manager, CHNS Radio; A. Purchase, president, Corner Brook Chamber of Commerce; J. R. B. Rankin, area manager, public relations, Air Canada; G. Regan, barrister; B. Richard, Acadia Travel Agency; J. A. Rioux, president, Fredericton Board of Trade; H. D. Robertson, manager, Robertson Travel Limited; Hon. H. J. Robichaud, Minister of Fisheries, government of Canada; C. Robinson, maritime editor, Weekend magazine; S. Rodriguez, manager, Atlas Travel Service; K. A. Ross, general manager, Halifax Board of Trade; P. Sampson, Bathurst Travel Bureau; R. C. Schurman, president, CJRW Radio; I. Schwartz, president, Glace Bay Travel Service; Warden I. Settle, municipality of the county of Halifax; D. Sheppard, president, Gander Chamber of Commerce; F. G. Sher-ratt, general manager, Radio CJCH 920 Ltd.; J. G. Simpson, director, Air Canada; Hon. R. L. Stanfield, Premier of Nova Scotia; C. M. Sullivan, president, Saint John Board of Trade; J. R. H. Sutherland, publisher, New Glasgow News; N. Swain, manager, South Shore Travel Service; G. Theriault, station manager, CBAF Television; G. T. Urquhart, chairman, Port and Industrial Commission; Mayor Charles A. Vaughan of Halifax; Mayor Joseph Zatzman of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
2.	The Hon. H. J. Robichaud and Mr. G. Regan, former member of parliament (see answer to number one) were among those on the inaugural flight.
3.	The president of Air Canada or his office did not make available a certain number of seats on said flight to the Minister of Transport. Hon. H. J. Robichaud represented the Minister of Transport on the flight and the Minister of Transport suggested to Air Canada that an invitation be extended to Mr. I. M. MacKeigan as chairman of the Atlantic Development Board and to Mr. G. Regan, since Mr. Regan had been the first and most persistent advocate in parliament of the Halifax-Bermuda Service.
Questions


EXPO '67-FEDERAL COMMITMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the limit of the amount the federal government can provide in grants to Expo '67?
2.	What provision has been made by the federal government with regard to the deficit which will result from Expo '67?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. The act establishing the corporation under section 10 provides as follows:
(1)	The corporation shall, as soon as practicable and in any event not later than one year after the coming into force of this act, submit for the approval of the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council its over-all plan for the exhibition, setting forth the various undertakings and projects proposed by the corporation in connection with the planning, organizing, holding and administering of the exhibition, the estimated cost of each such undertaking or project and an estimate of the total capital costs and operating costs of the corporation in respect of the exhibition.
(2)	Any material changes in the plan referred to in subsection (1), including estimates of costs therein, shall be submitted by the corporation to the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval.
(3)	Notwithstanding any other provision of this act and except for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) the corporation shall not initiate any undertaking or project, expend any money thereon or incur any liability therefor unless that undertaking or project is included in the approved over-all plan for the exhibition or modification thereof.
The same act, under section 11, also provides as follows: "The Minister of Finance, at the request of the corporation, may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the corporation by way of grant such amounts as are required for the conduct of the business of the corporation but the aggregate of all amounts paid to the corporation under this section shall not exceed twenty million dollars."
The act contains further provisions under which the corporation may borrow funds to meet its corporate needs. Section 12 provides as follows:
"(1) With the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance of Quebec, the corporation may borrow money for the purposes for which it is incorporated, on the security of notes, bonds or debentures of the corporation.

February 2, 1966
Questions
(2)	The corporation shall not issue any notes, bonds or debentures under the authority of subsection (1) except at such rates of interest and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council and unless payment of the principal amount thereof and of the interest thereon is guaranteed by Her Majesty and Her Majesty in right of the province of Quebec as provided in subsection (3).
(3)	The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance, on behalf of Her Majesty, to enter into a joint guarantee by Her Majesty and Her Majesty in right of the province of Quebec guaranteeing payment of the principal amount of any note, bond or debenture issued by the corporation under the authority of subsection (1) and of the interest thereon, which guarantee shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
2. With regard to the winding up of its affairs, the incorporating act provides as follows under section 19 (2): "(2) The corporation shall wind up its affairs and dispose of its assets and liabilities within such time after the closing of the exhibition and in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Governor in Council, with the concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may prescribe."
Section 12 of the agreement that the federal government has entered into with the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal on January 18, 1963, also provides as follows: "On the winding up of the corporation, its assets or liabilities, as the case may be, shall be distributed among Canada, the province and the city in the same proportion as their respective total cash contributions to the Corporation, that is 50 per cent federal government, 37J per cent provincial government, 12J per cent city of Montreal."


UNIVERSITY NEEDS. MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Coates: Is the government giving consideration to the special needs of the universities in the maritime provinces in so far as grants to universities are concerned?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The Prime

Minister advised the house on January 20 of an interim arrangement concerning federal grants to universities for the 1966-67 academic year. The method of payment through the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges is based on the principle that there should be an increased grant to universities located in provinces having a higher proportion of outside students. The application of that principle will help meet the special needs of the provinces, particularly of the Maritime Provinces, which have a high proportion of outside students.


SLIP CONSTRUCTION, OLD HARRY, MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. Keays: 1.	Has the government built a slip at "Old Harry" in the Magdalen islands?
2.	From whom was the land purchased, and at what price, in connection with the slip in question?
3.	What is the depth of the water where the slip is located?
4.	What were the reasons for changing the location of the slip from the previously chosen site at Sea Cow Path?
5.	What was the value of the land required at the original site for the construction of the slip?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. James A. Clark-$1,000.
3.	Varies from 0 to 3 feet depending on tides.
4.	(a) Sea Cow Path Cove is too narrow to accommodate all the fishermen.
(b)	A slipway would have required the protection of a breakwater.
(c)	The fishermen were interviewed and 17 out of 23 preferred Old Harry.
5.	This value was never determined for Sea Cow Path.


PERSONNEL, DEFENCE FORCES
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What was the active strength (naval, ground and air) of the defence forces of Canada as of December 31, 1965?
2.	What was the active enrolment in the militia as of the same date?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): 1. As of December 31, 1965, the strength of the regular forces was: navy, 18,878; army, 44,418; air force, 45,671.
2. On the same date, there were 30,331 in the militia.
February 2, 1966


PURCHASE OF CF-5 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What was the date of the decision of the government to acquire the CF-5 as an additional or as a replacement aircraft for the R.C.A.F. and when was it announced publicly?
2.	How many such aircraft are to be acquired and at what total costs?
3.	Are these aircraft to be manufactured wholly or in part in Canada and, if so, by whom as prime contractor?
4.	What is the date of delivery of the first operational aircraft of this class and when is it expected that delivery of the number of aircraft referred to in the announcement will be completed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 14 July and 15 July
1965 respectively.
2.	As announced, approximately 125 aircraft will be purchased at a cost not exceeding $215 million.
3.	Yes, Canadair Limited.
4.	The aircraft production schedule has not been determined yet, therefore the date of delivery of the first operational aircraft cannot be given.


PENSION PLAN ADVERTISING. QUEBEC
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Was the Canada Pension Plan advertised in the press in the province of Quebec?
2.	What was the cost of such advertising?
3.	In which newspapers or other media did this advertising appear?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2.	Does not apply.
3.	Does not apply.


FINE FOR OIL DISCHARGE BY SHIP
Mr. Johnston: What is the maximum fine that can be levied against a ship captain who is convicted of permitting the discharge of oil into Canadian waters?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Section 19 of the oil pollution prevention regulations provides for a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF LAGOS CONFERENCE
Mr. MacEwan: What was the cost of sending, and what was the number of employees that were sent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to cover the commonwealth conference in Lagos, Nigeria?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting
Questions
Corporation that it sent five employees and the necessary equipment to cover the commonwealth conference in Lagos, Nigeria. The total cost of providing English and French program material for its four radio and television networks was approximately $6,000.


PRINCESS LOUISE DRAGOON GUARDS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	When were the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards first constituted as a regiment?
2.	When was the regiment ordered to be reduced to nil strength and disbanded?
3.	What in detail were the reasons for such order?
4.	What, if any, action has been taken to assure the preservation of the high traditions of the regiment?
5.	Will the government give consideration to the return of this regiment to active status?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards originated as the "Ottawa Troop of Cavalry" authorized 23 May 1872 and redesignated "Dragoon Guards" on 15 November 1878 and as "The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards" on 3 January 1879. It became a regiment with the formation of an additional squadron and a regimental headquarters authorized respectively on 1 January 1903 and 1 February 1903. The regiment was redesignated "5 th Princess Louise Dragoon Guards" on 1 February 1903; "The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards" on 1 February 1903; "The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards" on 15 March 1920. It was amalgamated with the 4th Hussars of Canada on 15 December 1936 and redesignated "4th Princess Louise Dragoon Guards".
2.	The regiment has not been disbanded. It was reduced to nil strength and transferred to the supplementary order of battle effective 31 March 1965.
3.	The regiment was transferred to the supplementary order of battle following a review of the recommendations of the ministerial commission on the reorganization of the militia. The commission recommended that the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards be reduced to nil strength as there was no foreseeable requirement for the unit. The departmental review confirmed this recommendation.
4.	The Princess Louise Dragoon Guards is at present a unit of the Canadian Army (militia) supplementary order of battle. As such its name and traditions will be preserved in view of the valued contribution which the unit has made in the past and against the possibility that changed circumstances might require its reactivation in the future.

February 2, 1966
Questions
5.	Not at this time. The circumstances which gave rise to the regiment's transfer to the supplementary order of battle have not changed.


MOTION PICTURE RESPECTING SEAL HUNTING
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to a motion picture being distributed abroad indicating that brutal methods are being employed in Canadian seal hunting?
2.	If so, has the government taken any steps to meet the allegations presented therein?
3.	What steps have been taken by the government in recent years to meet such criticisms?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The seal protection regulations have been amended to specifically prohibit the use of inhumane killing methods by Canadian seal fishermen, arrangements have been made to provide for more effective enforcement of the regulations, consultations have been held with representatives of Canadian humane and conservation societies and plans made to have representatives of these societies visit the site of sealing operations in the gulf of St. Lawrence.


BILINGUAL REQUIREMENTS, CJB.C. FRENCH NETWORK
Mr. Allard: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation require bilingualism of employees on the French network?
2.	If so, does the C.B.C. plan to pay added remuneration to such employees?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that bilingualism is not a condition of employment with the French network. However, several positions require a reasonable knowledge of the English language.
2.	The question of special bonuses to bilingual employees is not presently under study by the C.B.C.
The Government, however, is pledged, as confirmed by the Speech from the Throne, to continue to work toward the broadening of the bilingual character of the Public Service. In that connection, I can say that the question of special bonuses or allowances for bilingual employees is under very active study at the present time.


C.M.H.C. SCHOLARSHIPS AND BURSARIES
Mr. Allard: With regard to scholarships and bursaries awarded by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to encourage postgraduate studies and research work in the field of housing, town planning and related subjects in Canadian universities (a) for the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965 to date, what was the number of scholarships and the value of these awarded in each province (b) in the province of Quebec, what universities accepted such recipients of scholarships and bursaries and in what proportion?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: [Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne) .1
February 2, 1966		COMMONS DEBATES			591 Questions
(a)					
1961-62		1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66
British Columbia					
Number of awards	12	8	9	6	6Total value $15,500	$10,400	$11,900	$ 8,000	$ 8,000Alberta	Number of awards	-	1	2	Total value	-	$ 1,200	$ 2,200	-	-Saskatchewan	Number of awards	-	-	Total value	-	-	-	-	-Manitoba	Number of awards	4	1	3	1	3Total value $	5,000	$ 500	$ 3,500	$ 500	$ 3,500Ontario	Number of awards	6	7	3	12	13Total value $	7,400	$ 8,900	$ 3,500	$25,337	$16,500Quebec	Number of awards	3	8	10	10	12Total value $	2,500	$10,000	$16,180	$16,200	$16,500New Brunswick	Number of awards	-	-	Total value	-	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia*	Number of awards	-	-	-	1	Total value	-	-	-	$ 500	-Prince Edward Island	Number of awards	-	Total value	-	-	-	-	-Newfoundland	Number of awards	-	-	-	-	-Total value	-	-	-	-	-1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66*The school of architecture at	the Nova	planning	schools	and architectural schoolsScotia Technical College,	Halifax,	was estab-	located	in British Columbia, Manitoba,	lished in 1961. Scholarships are available to	Ontario,	Quebec ;	and Nova Scotia. Bursaries
students entering their final year of study. and fellowships are also available for postNote: The majority of the above awards graduate studies in housing and urban consist of planning fellowships and travelling development, tenable at universities in scholarships in architecture tenable at the Canada and elsewhere.
(b)
1961-62		1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66
University of Montreal					
Number of awards	1	5	7	6	8Total value $	500	$ 6,500	$ 9,000	$ 9,000	$ 7,500Laval University*	Number of awards	-	-	1	1Total value	-	-	-	$ 500	$ 500McGill University	Number of awards	2	3	1	2	1Total value $ 2,000	$ 3,500	$ 500	$ 1,700	$ 500
February 2, 1966
Questions
The architectural school in Quebec city was established in 1961 and integrated with Laval University in 1964.
Note: In addition to the above awards, there have been 5 fellowships and bursaries totalling $19,680 awarded to residents of the province of Quebec for postgraduate studies in housing and urban development at universities outside Canada.


EXCEPTIONS IN GATT NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Allard: What countries, with regard to the Kennedy round of negotiations on GATT, were accepted and could negotiate on the product-for-product basis because of their varied economic structures, the composition of their exchanges, and their degree of varying progress?


Robert Henry Winters: The Trade Negotiations Committee meeting at ministerial level in May 1964 confirmed that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa fell into the category of countries with a special economic or trade structure such that equal linear tariff reductions may not provide an adequate balance of advantages. Ireland, Greece and Portugal are also understood to be participating in the negotiations on a non-linear basis.
Special procedures, not involving full reciprocity in the negotiations, have been agreed
for the participation of less developed countries. About twenty-five developing countries have pledged their intention to participate under these special procedures.


EXPO '67
Mr. Allard: 1.	With regard to the financial operations of Expo '67, on what date was the last accounting made by the federal government?
2.	What were the salaries and travelling and representation expenses of the senior officers of the exhibition for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce) 1. The financial transactions of the Corporation are constantly under audit by the Corporation's own internal auditors, the Auditor General and the Quebec Provincial Auditor. The Audit Services Branch of the Federal Government's Department of Finance are employed by the Corporation to audit its consultant and construction contracts.
The last official audit of the Auditor General of the Government of Canada and the Quebec Provincial Auditor covered their examination of the Corporation's transactions to December 31, 1964. During the year 1965 the average number of auditors engaged in auditing the Corporation's transactions are as set forth below:-
Maximum	Approx. No. of months	Averagestaff on job	worked	staff on jobInternal Audit Staff	12	7Federal Audit Staff	7	6Provincial Audit Staff 	4	2Audit Services (not on premises) 	
9	12	9Totals: 	24
As of January 25, 1966, there are 29 auditors in all categories working on Expo accounts.
2. Salaries, travelling and representation expenses of the senior officers of the Exhibition for 1963, 1964, 1965 are as follows, as atDecember 31st.
Salaries	1963	1964	1965P. Dupuy, Commissioner General 	$40,000	$40,000	$40,000R. F. Shaw, Deputy Commissioner General ..	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000A. G. Kniewasser, General Manager 	$32,500	$32,500	$32,500Travel and representation expenses	P. Dupuy 	-	$17,806	$29,029R. F. Shaw 	-	$11,000	$ 8,662A. G. Kniewasser 	nil	$ 5,559	$ 3,722

February 2, 1966


TAX ANALYSIS UNIT, TAXATION COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has the government established a tax analysis unit, or other task force, to advise it with respect to the implementation of the report of the royal commission on taxation?
2.	If so, what in detail are the functions or terms of reference of this unit or force?
3.	How do these functions or terms integrate with the functions, duties and authority of those officers of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue who ordinarily advise the government in respect of taxation problems?
4.	What are the names of the persons retained or employed to serve in such unit or force?
5.	What, in detail, is the business of public service experience of each such person?
6. (a) Is any such person on leave of absence from a private employer and, if so, who, and from what private employer (b) does any such person retain any connection with any private employer and, if so, who and from what private employer, and what is the nature of such connection?
7.	What are the terms and conditions of the retainer or employment of each such person in the public service and for what period is it expected each such person will be retained or employed?
8.	Has each such person taken the customary oaths of office applicable to public servants?
9.	If not, for what reason?
10.	Have any of such persons been provided with access to any sections of the report of the royal commission on taxation, either in draft or final form?
11.	If so, what sections of the report have been revealed to each such person?
12.	Have any officers of the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue, other than members of the said unit or force, been provided with access to any sections of the report of the royal commission on taxation, either in draft or final form?
13.	If so, what are the names of such officers?
14.	What sections of the report have been revealed to each such officer?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes.
2.	The terms of reference are to serve as special advisers in the Department of Finance in connection with tax issues and legislation arising from the consideration and implementation of the report of the royal commission on taxation in accordance with such directions as may be received from the deputy minister of finance.
3.	The functions of the unit are fully integrated with the functions of the other officers who advise the government on taxation. The unit reports to, and takes direction from, a committee chaired by the deputy minister of finance and including in its members the deputy ministers of national revenue, the
Questions
assistant deputy minister of finance, the assistant deputy minister of justice and the director of the tax policy division of the Department of Finance. In addition, members of the unit and officers of the departments are in continual contact with each other and are working jointly on many of their projects.
4 and 5. Mr. James R. Brown, for nine years a partner in Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., a firm of chartered accountants.
Mr. C. D. Pierre Bernier, for seven years a finance officer in the tax policy division of the Department of Finance.
Mr. Robert Bourassa, previously secretary, research director, and counsel to the Quebec royal commission on taxation and prior to that for some time a member of the legal branch of the Department of National Revenue.
Dr. Robert W. V. Dickerson, member of the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia and previously a practising lawyer in Vancouver.
Mr. Donald R. Huggett, for seven years a partner in McDonald, Currie & Co., a firm of chartered accountants.
Mr. H. David McGurran, for ten years a finance officer in the tax policy division of the Department of Finance with a seven-year interruption of public service from 1955 to 1962 while employed by the Canadian Tax Foundation and Massey-Ferguson Ltd.
Mr. E. Gillis Miller, previously a partner in Pederson, Norman, McLeod, Miller and Bertram, a firm of lawyers in Regina and a member of the Saskatchewan royal commission on taxation.
Mr. J. Benedict Smith, for fourteen years a finance officer with the Department of Finance lately in the tax policy division.
Mr. A. E. John Thompson, for two years a member of the research staff of the royal commission on taxation and prior to that a manager with Price, Waterhouse and Co., a firm of chartered accountants.
In addition there are clerical and secretarial support staff.
6.	(a) Yes, Dr. Dickerson is on leave of absence from the University of British Columbia. In addition, Messrs. Brown and Huggett are on leave of absence from their respective accounting firms.
(b) These three expect to return to the organizations mentioned. None is receiving any remuneration directly or indirectly from the organizations nor are they performing any services for those organizations during

February 2, 1966
Questions
the term of their agreements with the department. They continue to be covered under group insurance plans of those organizations.
7.	(a) Regarding the six who have been retained for these temporary duties, the annual rates of fees and allowances of two are $21,800 each, of two others $18,000 each, of a fifth $18,500 and of the sixth $17,500. The annual rates of remuneration of the three permanent members of the department attached to the unit are $14,946, $13,038 and $10,070, not necessarily respectively.
(b) It was earlier expected that the work of the unit would terminate over the next eight months but with the recurrent delays in the receipt of the commission report, its activities likely will be prolonged and the period of service of its members cannot now be forecast accurately. The regular members of the department are expected to serve in this unit as long as its work continues.
8.	Yes.
9.	N/A.
10.	Yes, they have seen draft chapters by arrangement with the commission and for the reasons indicated by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on January 24th (Hansard p. 146).
11.	To identify sections of the draft report would reveal confidential information.
12.	Yes.
13 and 14. Approximately 25 other officers have seen some part or parts of the draft material. It is not appropriate or customary to indicate which officers in the public service have seen any particular confidential papers.


CONSTRUCTION OF MINT, WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Brand: 1.	Has a decision been reached to build another mint in western Canada?
2.	If so, has any consideration been given to the use of handicapped individuals in positions relative to their degree of incapacity?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


PEMBINA RIVER DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Mr. Muir (Lisgar): Has the government received a report from the International Joint Commission respecting the Pembina river development project and, if so, what are the proposals, and what action is contemplated by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The answer to the first part of the question is no, therefore the second two questions are not applicable.


CANADA LABOUR CODE DEFERMENTS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What companies have been granted deferment from the operation of Part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?
2.	Who submitted the application for deferment in each case?
3.	What was the reason given for asking for a deferment in each case?
4.	For how long has each deferment been granted?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. Canadian
National Railways in respect of longshoremen employed at the Canadian National Railways ferry terminal at North Sydney, Nova Scotia.
2.	Railway Association of Canada. The International Longshoremen's Association agreed to the application for deferment.
3.	The reason given by the Railway Association of Canada was that the introduction of standard hours of work or the maximum hours of work under part I would be seriously detrimental to the operation.
4.	For a period of eighteen months from the first day of October, 1965.


MANAGEMENT SURVEY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Mr. Siarr: 1.	Was there a management survey made of the Department of Labour in 1965?
2.	What was the purpose of this survey?
3.	What were the terms of reference?
4.	Were tenders called for the purpose of this
survey?	.
5.	How many tenders were received?
6.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
7.	What was the name of the firm which was the successful tenderer and conducted the survey?
8.	What was the total cost of this survey?
9.	Has a report been submitted by the firm conducting the survey?
10.	Is this report available for public scrutiny?
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Labour): 1. Yes.
2.	Principally to examine the manpower activities of the department with a view to developing an effective organizational structure.
3.	(a) To study the functions and organization of the National Employment Service and other branches of the department directly engaged in activities relating to the development and use of manpower at departmental headquarters and representative regional and local field offices; (b) To examine the functions and organization of the other branches
February 2, 1966

of the department in relation to that of the department as a whole; (c) To develop and recommend an organizational structure and division of responsibilities at all significant levels, including effective working relationships, to meet the developing needs of the department in the accomplishment of its objectives in manpower and other fields of endeavour.
4.	Yes.
5.	Five.
6.	Yes.
7.	Woods, Gordon and Company, 75 Wellington Street, Toronto, Ontario.
8.	$40,250.
9.	Yes.
10.	Yes, a limited number of copies were prepared and circulated initially on a restricted basis; these can be made available to members of parliament for examination.


HALIFAX-PAY RATES AT MOTOR TRANSPORT SECTION
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What is the rate of pay at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, for the following employee classifications
(a)	driver (b) light equipment operator (c) driver (heavy), and (d) heavy equipment operator?
2.	What is the rate of pay at H.M.C.S, Shearwater for the same classifications?
3.	If there is a difference in the rates of pay at the two establishments, what is the reason for the difference?
4.	Is a shift differential paid to workers employed in the motor transport section at H.M.C. Dockyard?
5.	Is a shift differential paid to workers employed in the motor transport section at H.M.C.S. Shearwater?
6.	If there is a difference in treatment to these workers at the two establishments, what is the reason for the difference?
7.	What is the rate of pay to members of the motor transport section at H.M.C. Dockyard who work on statutory holidays?
8.	What is the rate of pay to members of the motor transport section at H.M.C.S. Shearwater who work on statutory holidays?
9.	If there is a difference in treatment to these workers at the two establishments, what is the reason for the difference?


Hon.   Leo. Cadieux@Associate Minister of National Defence: 1. (a) Driver, $2.05; (b)
Light equipment operator, $2.10; (c) Driver (heavy), $2.25; (d) Heavy equipment operator, $2.35.
2.	(a) Driver, $1.85; (b) Light equipment operator, $1.90; (c) Driver (heavy), $2.05; (d) Heavy equipment operator, $2.15.
3.	Rates of pay for prevailing rate employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, N.S., are determined by reference to the rates paid by
Questions
seven shipyards in the maritimes and St. Lawrence areas, whereas the rates for the motor transport section at H.M.C.S. Shearwater are determined by reference to prevailing rates in the transport industry.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to question 3.
7.	Triple time.
8.	Double time and one half.
9.	See answer to question 3.


SEED OATS AVAILABLE
Mr. Godin: 1.	What are the available amounts of seed oats for grade registered and grade certified offered in Canada for the spring of 1966?
2.	What were the available amounts of seed oats offered in 1965, for the same dates for grade registered and grade certified?


John James Greene: 1. No statistics are available to indicate the quantities of registered and certified seed oats that are offered for sale in Canada. However, based on the estimated production in 1965 of these classes, it is estimated that there will be about 660,000 bushels of registered seed and 1,100,000 bushels of certified seed graded and sealed which may be offered for sale for seeding in the spring of 1966.
2. In the 1964-65 season there were 700,091 bushels of registered seed oats and 1,265,868 bushels of certified seed oats graded and sealed and it is presumed that this seed was offered for sale for seeding in 1965.


DIRECT DEALING BY PROVINCES WITH I.L.O.
Mr. Allard: 1.	During the recent federal-provincial conference, attended by the provincial ministers of labour and federal authorities, was it decided to revise the procedure for the signing of international labour agreements?
2.	Have certain provinces expressed their intention to the government of dealing directly with the International Labour Organization?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. No.
2. No.


LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD JUDGMENT, CNTU APPLICATION
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is the government able to produce in the house the majority report of the labour relations board, as well as the minority report of Mr. Gerard Picard, a delegate, in connection with the rejection of an application for certification of the C.N.T.U. in the CJB.C.?
2.	Does the government intend during the present session of parliament to introduce a regulation

February 2, 1966
Questions
which should be taken into account by the labour relations board and which should enable a union to obtain certification, even if it does not include most of the employees of an entire business enterprise, but does include most of the employees of a branch, of a regional division or even of a separate administrative division?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. Yes. The reasons for judgment of the Canada labour relations board with respect to the application for certification of le Syndicat General du Cinema et de la Television (CNTU), affecting certain employees of the CBC are available upon request, as well as the dissenting opinion of one member of the board.
2. Such action is unnecessary since the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act already provides that the Canada
Labour Relations Board shall, on any application for certification, determine whether the unit in respect of which the application is made is appropriate for collective bargaining. The appropriate unit may be an employer unit, craft unit, technical unit, plant unit or any other unit.


HOUSING ACT INTEREST RATES
Mr. McCleave: What was the range of interest rates for mortgages under the National Housing Act in (a) 1955
(b)	1960 (c) 1965?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The range of interest rates for mortgages under the National Housing Act in (a) 1955 (b) 1960 (c) 1965 are set out in the table below.
Insured
Loans
Period	(Part I)
%
1965-January	 5.50
February-December	 5.25
1960-January-September	 6.75
October-November	 6.75
December	 6.75
1965-January-December	 6.25
Limited Dividend (Sec. 16 -16A)	University Loans (Sec. 36B)	Sewer Loans (Sec. 36F)	Public Housing Loans to Provinces (Sec. 35D)%	%	%	%3.750	-	3.500	-	-5.875	_5.125	-	-	5.125	5.125	5.125	5.1255.375	5.375	5.375	5.375


MEETING OF KEITH DAVEY AND CITIZENSHIP DEPUTY MINISTER
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	Did the deputy minister of citizenshiD and Immigration confer during the first week in January 1966 with Mr. Keith Davey?
2.	What was the purpose of this meeting?


John Carr Munro: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


P.E.L CAUSEWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF ISLANDERS
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): What is the number of residents of Prince Edward Island now employed by the Diamond Construction Company on the building of the initial approaches for the Prince Edward Island causeway?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am given to under-[Mr. Allard.)
stand by the Diamond Construction Company that, to the best of their knowledge, none of the employees working for them on the highway approaches in New Brunswick is a resident of Prince Edward Island.


FRASER RIVER TRIFURCATION
Mr. Mather: Has a decision been reached to proceed with trifurcation of the Fraser river in 1966?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY RETURNING OFFICER
Mr. Ricard: 1.	What is the name and address of the returning officer for the electoral district of Portneuf?
2.	Since when has he served in that capacity?
3.	By whom was he recommended for that position?
February 2, 1966


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Mr. Guy Renaud, 106 Jacques-Cartier Blvd, Donnacona, Quebec.
2.	He was appointed July 28, 1965.
3.	No information.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES. SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM
Mr. McLelland: What are the total expenditures to date by the federal government on the building of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project?


John James Greene: The total expenditure to December 31, 1965, by the federal government on the construction of the South Saskatchewan river project is $106,029,378. This sum includes the shareable and non-shareable costs. On the shareable portion, the province of Saskatchewan has repaid Canada its obligation in the amount of $19,877,100.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Allard: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the calendar year 1965?
2.	How are they distributed according to their country of origin?
3.	How many are English speaking and how many are French speaking immigrants?


VETERANS AFFAIRS HOSPITALS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the number of patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Canada, hospital by hospital, in the last year?
2.	What was the number of patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Canada, hospital by hospital, ten years ago?
3.	What was the staff employed, full time and part time, in the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Canada, hospital by hospital, last year as between doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc.?
4.	What was the staff employed, full time and part time, in the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Canada, hospital by hospital, ten years ago, as between doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc.?
Return tabled.


TENDER-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Mr. Irvine: With respect to tender M.S. 05-611-4359 Department of Defence Production, closing date October 21, 1965 (a) who were the various persons, firms or companies which were invited to tender (b) what firms, companies or persons actually tendered
(c)	what was the quoted amount of each tender
(d)	what firms attached conditions to their tenders and what were the respective conditions of
Motions for Papers
such firms (e) who was the lowest tenderer (f) to whom was the contract awarded, and why (g) why was the contract not awarded to the lowest tenderer?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the following notices of motions for the production of papers are acceptable to the government: 4, 6, 11, 23, 24, 25 to 37, 40, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55 to 70 and 73 to 76.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the following notices of motions are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations about the agreement of the provincial authorities concerned: 5, 22, 41, 42, 44, 46 and 51.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in that connection I think there has been some comment by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), myself and others on this side of the house, that the phrase "the usual reservations" must not be used at any time because the reservations are very indefinite. Since the parliamentary secretary has used the phrase, the reservations by consent should be part of the order. The reservations should always be spelled out in the order.


George James McIlraith: It was spelled out.


Mr. Speaker:: The reservation was stated by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that the notices listed are agreed to subject to the usual reservations?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the notices listed by the hon. parliamentary secretary also be adopted subject to the reservations stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, Notice concerning Motion No. 2 is acceptable for the government provided it is well understood that the papers to be produced have some connection with letters and correspondence received from the general public.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?

February 2. 1966
Motions for Papers


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour call notices of motions Nos. 9, 12, 38, 39, 45 and 54? I ask that all remaining Motions be allowed to stand.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BERNARD POWER AND TRANSPORT MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. Bernard Power and the Minister of Transport, during the month of June, 1965.
Motion agreed to.
FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Motion No. 5-Mr. Laprise:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any letter addressed by the Minister of Agriculture for the provinoe of Quebec to the federal Minister of Agriculture, dated September 9, 1964, dealing with a farm assistance program.
Motion agreed to.
RETURNS SHOWING ELECTION EXPENSES Motion No. 6-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate in the general election of November 8, 1965, by constituencies, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted by the official agent of each candidate, as required under the provisions of section 63 of the Canada Elections Act; and showing also the names of any candidates, by constituencies, on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.
Motion agreed to.
WORKING PAPERS, NORRIS COMMISSION Motion No. 9-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris commission by the chartered accountants hired by the commission and deposited by Mr. Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, a similar motion appeared on the order paper during the last parliament. When it was called, my immediate predecessor as Minister of Labour indicated that to accept this motion would involve a disclosure of working papers of the commission, and this is contrary to customary practice, because it would also involve a disclosure of confidential internal operations of several trade unions. My observation in this case in reference to motion No. 9 would be identical to that of my predecessor. I therefore respectfully suggest that the hon. member consider withdrawing the motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when I raised this matter last session I received the answer that the minister has just given. I said then, and I repeat now, that obviously a reporter for the Toronto Star had access to those documents, that very large extracts were printed in the Toronto Star which made very serious allegations against various people, and I did not think that members of parliament should be second class citizens behind newspapermen. I would therefore request that this motion be put down for debate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



AGREEMENT WITH U.S. RESPECTING AIR ROUTES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the agreement between the Canadian and United States governments dealing with new air routes between the two countries.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Keays:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the C.B.C. and Maurice Sauve, electoral candidate, prior to the general elections of 1962 in relation to a decision respecting French television services in the lies de la Madeleine, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, any correspondence of the kind referred to in notice of motion No. 12 would be the property not of the government but of the individual who wrote the letter and of the corporation. Consequently it could not be produced by the government. I understand, however, that Mr. Sauve, who is now a member of this chamber, is quite willing to table any such material which is his private correspondence. That being the case, I ask leave of the house to table correspondence dated April 21, 1962, and May 2, 1962 between Mr. Sauve and Mr. Alphonse Ouimet of the C.B.C.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: sure that the people of the Magdalen Islands would be very satisfied to know that such correspondence does exist.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion since the government cannot be bound by such an order and would not be able to produce the correspondence. Any correspondence which the hon. member produces for tabling is his own correspondence. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I would never do anything in this house that would be derogatory to the government or the minister, and I am quite satisfied with having the correspondence as produced by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
AIR CANADA OVERHAUL BASE, WINNIPEG Motion No. 22-Mr. Sherman:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the Honourable Duff Roblin, premier of Manitoba, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, since the first day of September. 1965, regarding the Air Canada Viscount overhaul base in Winnipeg.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Sherman:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, and presentations, including those of condemnation or criticism, between the Minister of Transport and/or other ministers with Canadian organizations or individuals regarding the suggested terms in the air agreement recently entered into between the United States and Canada, since the 1st of December 1965.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all treaties, conventions, agreements, accords, or other understandings concluded or achieved since April 23, 1963, between
Motions for Papers
the Republic of France and Canada or between the Republic of France and any province of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH BENOIT ALLAIRE Motion No. 25-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Benoit Allaire of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Finance or any official of the Department of Finance and Mr. Gaetan Theberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Gaetan Theberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH JEAN-MARC ROBERGE Motion No. 28-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15. 1966 between the Minister of Finance or any official of the Department of Finance and Mr. Benoit Allaire of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Finance or any official of the Department of Finance and Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 2, 1966
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965, to January 15, 1966 between the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the Department of External Affairs and Mr. Jean Thetreault of Plessisville, Megan tic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Finance or any official of the Department of Finance and Mr. Jean Thetreault of Plessisville, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Jean Thetreault of Plessisville, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the Department of External Affairs, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1. 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the Department of External Affairs and Mr. Benoit Allaire of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the Department of External Affairs and Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

Motion No. 37-Mr. Simpson:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the letter to the Prime Minister from Mayor Juba of Winnipeg dated January 11, 1966 and the reply thereto concerning the alleged unfairness of the government to western Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any orders in council, treasury board minutes, directives, memoranda, letters of instruction or advice, or other documents related to the policy adopted by the government of Canada since April 23, 1963, toward the expropriation by or on behalf of the National Capital Commission of properties in the province of Quebec.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this order asks for a copy of orders in council, treasury board minutes, directives, and so on. Objection has always been taken in this house to tabling treasury board minutes unless they are confirmed by an order in council. Subject to that reservation I am quite agreeable to the order passing. I believe there are no such treasury board minutes, in any event, in this case, but I wanted to make the reservation so this procedure would not be used as a precedent.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the particular circumstances I am quite satisfied with the reservation which has been made, but I do reserve the right on a future occasion to debate whether treasury board minutes are properly produceable in this chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


George James McIlraith: It is accepted, Mr. Speaker, subject to the reservation I have made.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation outlined by the Minister of Public Works, is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, briefs or other documents of communications received by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Department of Justice from the Law Society of Upper Canada relating to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made to any such reports, briefs or other documents or communications; all letters or other communications
February 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
addressed by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or any officer of the Department of Justice, since the 1st day of January 1964 to Mr. Justice Leo Landreville; all replies made by Mr. Justice Leo Landreville or by any solicitor or agent on his behalf, to any such letters or other communications.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has asked me to report that he has received no communications whatsoever relating to Mr. Justice Landreville, all the communications having been addressed to the Minister of Justice.
I regret that the government cannot accept the hon. member's motion. As members of the house will know, the subject matter of the hon. member's motion has now been referred to a commissioner appointed to consider it. It will be for the commissioner to examine such witnesses and consider such documents as he considers expedient, and I submit that no action should be taken by this house that would in any way impede a full, proper and fair inquiry by the commissioner, or which would in any way prejudice Mr. Justice Landreville in making his answer to any charges that might be made against him.
I would also like to remind hon. members that it is a well established principle that the conduct of a judge ought not to be questioned in the house either directly or indirectly without a substantive motion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It is not being questioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The statement made by the minister at this time is out of order.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason in anything that has been said by the Minister of Justice to withdraw this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the motion is one which should properly be put to the house.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I request, then, that the motion be transferred for debate.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of order. This is becoming a method whereby the government covers and conceals.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Motions for Papers


John George Diefenbaker: It was never intended that the method of transferring a motion for debate should become a refuge for a government that does not desire to present the facts to the house. I take strong objection to this course because it is going to be absolutely impossible, on the basis of what this government did in the last session, for the members of this house to get any information. They have been denied it by the simple subterfuge of moving that the matter be transferred foi debate. Why not face a vote of this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to-


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Alberl):: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you take the matter under advisement and consider whether the government may have lost the opportunity to transfer this matter for debate when they threw it back to the hon. member for his comments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Certainly the provisions of standing order 47 must be kept in mind. In my short experience ministers have been given some latitude in the past years to explain why they wish the mover of a motion to withdraw it. When this suggested procedure has been refused, ministers have then requested that the matter be transferred for debate. I believe hon. members will agree that this has been the procedure which has been followed in previous years. Whether it is a good procedure I am not going to say.
Perhaps this might be a good opportunity to remind ministers that in making the suggestion that the matter be transferred for debate they should not place themselves in a difficult position by making long statements, perhaps of the nature of the one made by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. However, I suggest to hon. members that we have been following this practice for quite some time now, and I do not believe the Chair should be placed in the position of changing the practice at this time. I submit also that the point made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is well taken and should be taken into account very seriously by ministers in the future.
This matter is transferred for debate.



FUNCTIONS OF PRIME MINISTER-RELATIONSHIP TO GOVERNOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all orders in council approved since January 1. 1919, specifying or outlining the functions or prerogatives of the Prime Minister of Canada; all
[Stage Direction]
February 2, 1966
Motions for Papers
instruments of advice or other documents dated since the said date purporting to define or indicate the constitutional relationship of the Prime Minister of Canada to His Excellency the Governor General.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Barnell:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house, a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of British Columbia or any of its agencies and the government of Canada or any of its agencies since the present Prime Minister assumed office on the subject of payment by the federal government of operating subsidies for provincially-operated car/passenger ferries and/ or other forms of coastal shipping.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Barnett:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of British Columbia or any of its agencies and the government of Canada or any of its agencies since the present Prime Minister assumed office on the subject of payment of federal shipbuilding subsidies on vessels built by or for the government of British Columbia and/or its agencies.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Gregoire:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the government of Quebec, concerning the payment of amounts owed by the federal government under the winter works act, in the municipalities of Jonquiere, Kenogami, Arvida, Notre Dame du Rosaire, St. Leon, Begin, St. Nazaire, St. Ambroise, St. Charles Borromee, St. Jean Vianney, St. David de Falardeau, St. Honore, Larouche, and the parish of Jonquiere, all of which are situated in the county of Lapointe, for the year 1964-1965.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Woolliams:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of a letter or letters written by the President of the United States asking for Canadian military assistance or any other kind of assistance in reference to the conflict in Viet Nam.
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to accepting this motion but it can, of course, be done only with the usual reservation, in this case the usual reservation being the necessity for obtaining the concurrence of the President of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to that reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Mongrain:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal Department of Transport and the Trois-Rivieres bridge commission, or any of its officers, as well as with the Quebec Department of Transport, concerning the Trois-Rivieres bridge over the St. Lawrence river, between January 1, 1960, and January 1, 1966.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr, Dinsdale:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, telegrams, etc., exchanged between the mayor and council of the city of Brandon and the Prime Minister or any minister of the crown or branch of government with respect to the order of the Board of Transport Commissioners permitting the cancellation of the "Dominion" train.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):
That an order of the house do issue for a cony of all correspondence, briefs and/or submissions exchanged between the Department of Industry and any groups or persons with respect to the exclusion of Halifax. Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton, under the Area Development Incentives Act, which industrial incentive plan was applied to all other parts of the Atlantic provinces.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Grafftey:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, or other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof since January 1, 1965. with any officials of the automobile industry either within or outside Canada relating to the production of safer automobiles.
Motion agreed to.
February 2, 1966

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an order of the house do issue for a codv of all letters, documents, telegrams, etc., that have passed between any member of the government of Canada and the premier of Saskatchewan or any member of the government of Saskatchewan regarding tax incentives or reduced freight rates in connection with a pulp mill at Prince Albert. Saskatchewan, being built by Parsons and Whitte-more Inc. of New York.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1. 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any official of the Department of National Health and Welfare and Mr. Jean Thetreault. of Plessisville. Megantic county; Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines. Megantic county: Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge. of Thetford Mines. Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaytan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54
Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15. 1966 between the Minister of National Revenue or any official of the Department of National Revenue and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic County, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic County, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic County, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic County.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: This motion is acceptable, provided it is clearly understood that any correspondence produced is not to include the personal tax returns of the individuals involved or correspondence in respect thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed, subject to the reservation specified by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESIDENTS OF MEGANTIC COUNTY
Motion No. 55-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister of Veterans Affairs or any official of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the government leader in the Senate or any official of the office of the government leader in the Senate and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Secretary of State or any official of the Department of the Secretary of State and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Minister Without Portfolio or any official of the office of the Minister Without Portfolio and Mr. Jean Thetreault, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1,
[Stage Direction]
February 2, 1966
Motions for Papers
1965 to January 15, 1966 between the Prime Minister or any official of his office and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Flessisville, M£gantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Mfegantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megan tic county, and Mr. GaStan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Me-gantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Fisheries or any official of the Department of Fisheries and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or any official of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 62-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Solicitor General or any official of the office of the Solicitor General and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or any official of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged from September 1, 1965, to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any official of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic countty, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the President of the Privy Council or any official of Privy Council and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines. Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Agriculture or any official of the Department of Agriculture and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville. Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire. of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Public Works or any official of the Department of Public Works and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1. 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Transport or any official of the Department of Transport and Mr. Jean Thetreauit, of Plessisville,
February 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thet-ford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Langlois (Megantic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from September 1, 1965 to January 15, 1966, between the Minister of Forestry or any official of the Department of Forestry and Mr. Jean Thctreauit, of Plessisville, Megantic county, Mr. Jean-Marc Roberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, Mr. Benoit Allaire, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county, and Mr. Gaetan Theberge, of Thetford Mines, Megantic county.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all communications between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or officials of his department and the cottage owners' association and campers' association of Riding Mountain national park with respect to leasing policy in the park.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Prime Minister, dated since July 1, 1964, concerning the matter of increasing the pensions of civil servants already retired, as well as the pensions of widows of civil servants, and a copy of the replies by or on behalf of the Prime Minister to all such letters.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Minister of Finance, dated since July 1, 1964, concerning the matter of increasing the pensions of civil servants already retired, as well as the pensions of widows of civil servants, and a copy of the replies by or on behalf of the Minister of Finance to all such letters.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Prime Minister, dated since July 1, 1964, concerning the matter of increasing the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and a copy of the replies by or on behalf of the Prime Minister to all such letters.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry INCREASED PENSIONS FOR RETIRED C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Motion No. 76-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Minister of Transport, dated since July 1, 1964, concerning the matter of increasing the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and a copy of the replies by or on behalf of the Minister of Transport to all such letters.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has his attention been drawn to the very full and complete report of the speech given in Toronto by Hon. Eric Kierans? Indeed, the report is so full that most politicians would hope they might achieve the same results. Mr. Kierans has stated that the restrictions imposed by United States guide lines on Canadian economic policy are serious; that they are tightening the grip of the United States on our economy and they threaten the attainment of our own economic objectives.
In view of the high position held by Mr. Kierans and his widespread knowledge gained as a result of having been President of the Montreal Stock Exchange, are not his statements well founded? I do not want to get into an argument between the federal and provincial governments in any way. In view of the fact that the minister did not approve of the guide lines, what representations has the government of Canada made in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that while you have allowed a little leeway to the Leader of the Opposition to express himself briefly by way of a question, you would stop me from answering as fully in my reply. May I say I am very glad that the Hon. Mr. Kierans has found an acceptable place to express his views. So far as I am concerned, I am very glad that he has. I think this has been a useful contribution to the discussions. I know that the hon. gentleman will not expect me to deal in detail with his question, which would require me to make a speech. May I just say that with many of the things Mr. Kierans has said we would all agree.


An hon. Member:: Which one?
February 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I can make my speech now if you will give me the time. I should like to say that there are some points on which I do disagree with Mr. Kierans. If there is an opportunity this afternoon, perhaps I might make a few very brief comments during the debate on the supply motion, not to give a reply to Mr. Kierans but to indicate some of the points I think ought to be kept in mind.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the very serious implications for the Canadian economy which Mr. Kierans has pointed out in great detail, does the minister not agree it is time to make a serious protest in this regard to the United States Secretary of Commerce?


Mitchell William Sharp: In reply may I say two things. First of all, as I said in my speech the other day, we expressed ourselves very strongly to the United States. We have not accepted the guide lines in any agreement reached between Canada and the United States. We are quite free to take whatever action we like. On the other hand, we did not feel that it was appropriate for us to make any concessions to the United States in order to buy our exemption from these guide lines. We think they should not be applied to Canada and hope the United States will come to that view.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a further supplementary question. Would the minister be willing to table his reply to the United States government for the information of the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think all there is on the record is a press statement I issued in which I set out the agreement and the statements made by the various secretaries in the United States. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could clarify his question.


George Harris Hees: Since there was nothing of a positive nature in the minister's statement to the United States Secretary of Commerce, will he please advise the house by tabling his reply exactly what he did say, if he did say anything at all?


Mitchell William Sharp: I deny the implication in this question. If I may be permitted to speak for just a moment, we made very vigorous representations to the United States on this question, as vigorous as Mr. Kierans has made.


George Harris Hees: Then table them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I made a speech in this house in which I set them forth. They were not in writing. Why would they be in writing? I attended meetings with the Secretary of Commerce, I attended meetings with the Secretary of the Treasury, as did my officials. I gave a factual and clear account which I suggest my hon. friend should read before he makes these loose statements in this house.


George Harris Hees: I have read them and there is still nothing there.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. The Minister of Finance has said that we are perfectly free to take whatever action we choose with respect to the guide lines which have been established by the government of the United States. May I ask the minister what action the government proposes to take in the light of these guide lines?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the guide lines have adverse effects upon Canada, or I should say if the United States guide lines have an adverse effect on Canada, and there is no evidence yet that they have-


An hon. Member:: They will.


Mitchell William Sharp: -then the Canadian government is quite prepared to issue its own guide lines if necessary. Long before Mr. Kierans ever interjected himself into this situation the governor of the Bank of Canada called in the heads of the chartered banks and spoke to them about the possibility that by reason of the guide lines some Canadian companies subsidiary to American companies might be operating in Canada to the detriment of other Canadian customers. If necessary we will take other measures. I can assure the hon. member that we will take steps, just as strong as the United States is taking to protect the interests of citizens of that country in order to protect the interests of Canadian citizens.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if the disagreement which he expressed to the representative of the United States government arose out of his fear that these guide lines would have some adverse effect on Canada? May I ask the minister why it is necessary to wait until those adverse effects are apparent rather than acting now?
February 2, 1966	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason we made those representations, and the foundation of our relations with the United States, is that Canada is not contributing to the difficulties of the United States. Therefore we urged the government of the United States in its own interest as well as in ours not to apply these guide lines to Canada. This is the basis of it. However, I do not think there is any evidence yet that these will have an undesirable effect. Indeed, there are some aspects of them that might be in accordance with our own policy. However, if they do have an adverse effect I can assure the hon. member that we are not going to stand idly by.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us if, in his meetings with the governor of the Bank of Canada, anything was said about using new capital from the Bank of Canada to make up for the capital which is no longer available in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that that is not a proper question.


Gilles Grégoire: Why, Mr. Speaker? I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously the question is out of order and cannot be accepted at this time because it is not urgent. Any information the minister could give in reply to the hon. member's question is not urgent and the hon. member can get it just as well if he puts his question on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that we have a short question period this afternoon. We have already spent some time on this one subject. I suggest that we give other hon. members, who also have a very short time to put urgent matters forward, an opportunity at this time to ask their questions. If there is time left then, I think we might return again to this very urgent problem.
DEBATES	607
Inquiries of the Ministry



EFFECT ON MUNICIPALITIES OF NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister had any discussions with Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick regarding the financial implications of the new legislation recently introduced in New Brunswick which affects municipalities so seriously?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. We have learned during recent days more particularly that India is experiencing the worst famine of the century. Could the hon. gentleman inform the house what steps Canada is taking to assist our sister commonwealth nation in terms of trade arrangements or direct aid at the moment in so far as this matter is concerned?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to give a substantial gift of food to India. There have been consultations with the United States and with other countries seeking to encourage still other nations to join in assistance similar to that given by the United States and Canada. Suggestions have been made that a meeting of potential donors might be called, possibly in New Delhi itself. Canada has indicated that we would be prepared to support any measure which would encourage a wider participation in this program of assistance.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if Canada has not been hampered in its effort to give effective aid to India, by the failure of the railways to deliver wheat to seaports?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I am not aware of any difficulty that has been placed in the way of Canada's giving effect to our decision to help.
February 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance because of his answer respecting the municipal development loan fund the other day not being very clear. I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared now or in the near future to consent to the extension of this project beyond March 31, 1966.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have not answered this question is that I was giving an opportunity for various representations to be made to me which have been forecast by telegram. It is just out of courtesy to these people concerned that I have delayed the answer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does the minister agree with the statement made by Mr. Eric Kierans, Quebec Minister of Health, about the health resources fund of $500 million, to the effect that grants should be paid to the provinces and not directly to institutions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is in order at this time. It is a question of a very general nature and does not seek information that is needed urgently at this time.



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF HOSPITAL GRANT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scotl (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the continuing critical shortage of hospital beds in metropolitan Toronto, resulting in long delays even for urgent surgery cases, is the government prepared to reconsider its policy on hospital grants with a view to at least matching the size of the provincial government grant in this important area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have reconsidered the policy. At the meeting yesterday of Ministers of Health I advised that the government proposed to recommend to parliament at the appropriate time the extension of the hospital grants for a period of an additional two years up to 1970. No consideration has been given to the point raised by my hon. friend and no decision has been reached to increase the level of the present assistance.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the minister whether this extension of two years is going to take care of all construction now under way and proposed construction now on the drawing boards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question, but I believe it was received by the provincial representatives as being a helpful step in the direction of assisting future hospital construction.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he is now prepared to answer the question I asked him the other day regarding the Prince Edward Island causeway.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me if the government intended to delay construction of the causeway to Prince Edward Island and the answer-


John Angus MacLean: The words used were "stretch out".


George James McIlraith: The answer is that there is no intention to delay or stretch out the construction program on the causeway.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to address to the Minister of Public Works. He said some moments ago there was to be no stretching out of the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway. Since the completion date will have considerable effect on the economy, industry and social life of Prince Edward Island, can the minister tell the house when it is expected the causeway will be completed?
February 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a ques-	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
tion which could easily be placed on the
order paper.	Rhodesia-inquiry as to extent



OF EMBARGO

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY	On the orders of the day:

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour the following question. Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company altered the terms of its pension plan recently since the passage of the Canada Pension Plan and has the government given consideration to intervention following a request from the unions?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that that question might be placed on the order paper.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, which is of considerable interest to British Columbia. Has a final decision been made to proceed with the multimillion dollar trifurcation project on the Fraser river?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



TEXTILES-VALUATION FOR DUTY ON IMPORTS FROM CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and arises from his announcement as to the voluntary restriction accepted by Hong Kong on the export of textiles to Canada. Will the minister give to the mainland Chinese, who export a very small quantity of textiles to Canada, the valuation for duty applied in Hong Kong instead of the one applied in Japan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to Rhodesia and the report in the press to the effect that some of the oil which was being transported to a neighbouring country was finding its way into Rhodesia. Would the minister say what information he has been able to secure in this connection and would he also give his estimate as to the completeness of the embargo both on imports from and exports to Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the last part of the question has to do with the completeness of the Canadian embargo.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is the question, and I take it it is from the right hon. gentleman's assent, then I may say this consideration is now being examined with a view to ascertaining if additional action by Canada should be taken.
With regard to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman the other day and asked again today, I would say that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has confirmed that no such statement was made by any R.C.A.F. personnel.


John George Diefenbaker: It was so reported.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; the right hon. gentleman is correct in that regard. As to the substance of the matter, we have consulted the British authorities who are responsible for the organization of the airlift and we have been informed that they have no reason to believe that the Zambians are in fact selling any oil to Rhodesia.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one further question in that connection, Mr. Speaker. The British government has, of course, extended the field of its embargo sanctions. What is the extent today of the embargo imposed by the Canadian government and is it expected or anticipated that the course taken by the British government will be followed by Canada?
610	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I must have not made myself clear. In answering the first question of my right hon. friend I indicated that we were now giving consideration whether we should impose further embargos on imports from Rhodesia and on exports from Canada to Rhodesia. I indicated the day before yesterday that the extent of the embargo on imports was well over 90 per cent. We are now considering the action taken the other day by the British government, and this consideration applies to whatever course that we, in the circumstances, feel we should take.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the embargo with regard to Rhodesia is 90 per cent or over 90 per cent effective. Can he say what items are not now effectively covered by the embargo?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I cannot give offhand the items that are not covered. The present embargo on imports covers, of course, tobacco, sugar, chrome and a whole series of other products, but I cannot give the precise commodities which are not now covered. Our embargo covers, of course, oil, although in fact Canada does not ship any oil to Rhodesia. However, we wanted to make sure there was no doubt on that score and it was important for exemplary purposes that Canada should take that action. This action was all supplementary to the preliminary action including withdrawing our trade commissioner, placing an arms embargo against Rhodesia and taking certain steps with regard to the application of the export credit insurance provisions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether it is the intention of the government to study the items not covered and to see that they also are included in the embargo?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, in replying to this question I would want to emphasize that the action taken by Canada covers a very wide area. We are now giving consideration to whether the area of import embargo which I say is now substantial, well over 90 per cent, should be increased to the level of 100 per cent.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question on the same topic, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs under what authority the government has imposed

DEBATES	February 2, 1966
the embargo with regard to Rhodesia. Second, is it his intention to get the approval of parliament for the course of action which the government has undertaken?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, our authority for this action was derived in part from the Export and Import Permits Act.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the disturbing information contained in the report of the Auditor General regarding the very small percentage of the recommendations in the Glassco commission report which have been implemented to date, when may we expect a statement from the government as to its intentions and plans with respect to implementing the balance of this report?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Ading Prime Minisler: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give the extent of the implementation. It is very considerable, as my hon. friend possibly knows. However, I would be very glad to see whether I can give a more accurate and precise reply.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. Would he comment on the apparent rejection by the government of the very large number of recommendations made by the standing committee on public accounts, some of which were contained in reports made to this house on more than one occasion?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, in replying to that question may I say I am sure that the reply given to the hon. member for Kamloops would have pertinent application.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-LISTING OF PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the
Secretary of State?
February 2, 1966

Has the minister examined the book just published by the office of the Secretary of the province of Quebec, giving the details of the centennial projects in that province; if so, has the hon. lady noticed, as many federal members have, that any reference to the federal participation in those projects has been systematically avoided?


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


Gérald Laniel: May I debate it at ten o'clock? [English]



USE OF ALARM BELL TO CALL IN MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is perhaps less portentous than many which have been asked today but I would not want the day to pass without it being noted that it is a special anniversary. Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the fire on Parliament Hill. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he would consider abolishing the use of the fire alarm to call in the members and providing us with a more euphonious division bell?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that this comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works but if we could get a more effective method I would be very glad to do what I could to see it introduced.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he now any information he can give to the house with respect to the report that instructions were issued, I am informed by the Department of External Affairs, to national defence personnel in Africa to include any necessary bribery in their expense accounts?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that to the best of our knowledge no such instructions were issued. It is a fact that in Leopoldville gratuities are required with respect to obtaining a number of services essential to the carrying out of our duties there. Where it is possible to get receipts for these they are obtained.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-EMPLOYMENT FOR DISMISSED PERSONNEL On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who has been good enough to advise me that he is now responsible for the national employment service. May I ask the minister whether any steps will be taken or any extra effort made by the national employment service to find employment for the further 100 civilian employees at the Point Edward naval base who have been advised by letter that their services will no longer be required after March 31 next?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF ACT On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations from industrial committees representing the gold mining area of Timmins with a view to changes being made in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and, if so, is the government contemplating any changes as a result of those representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting a delegation from Timmins including a number of very charming people. I listened for a long time last evening, and I promised the most careful consideration of their views when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act comes up for revision.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MARITIMES On the orders of the day:


David Réal Caouette: May I put
a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
Has the government now received enough information on the damage caused by the week end storm in the Maritimes to decide whether a special assistance fund should be set up for those whose properties have been damaged?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not have the time to look into that. I will take this question as notice.
February 2, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a request from the town council of Elbow, Saskatchewan, requesting assistance in having a Cree Indian shrine known as Mistasem moved to another location so it will not be destroyed by the creation of the reservoir in connection with the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question be placed on the order paper. It may be very important. It is difficult for the Chair to decide how urgent the matter is, but I suspect it can be allowed to wait for a couple of days.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question of which I have given notice and concerning which I have exchanged various documents with her while the question period has been going on.
Has the hon. lady's attention been drawn to a story in Le Devoir to the effect that the Acadian Education Association has made a protest about the fact that there are no French speaking employees of the National Film Board in the maritime provinces? What steps will the minister take to alleviate this serious situation? I ask this question as one of the President of the Privy Council's "colonials".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Royal to place this question on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforih): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of increased speculation in the press and elsewhere about the possibility

of a further devaluation of the Canadian dollar, can the minister assure the house that the Canadian dollar will be maintained at its present level and that there will not be a further devaluation?
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the cardinal principles of being Minister of Finance is that one never discusses the exchange rate even to say there is nothing to the rumour. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no intention of changing the value of the Canadian dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?



REPORTED LIMITATION OF EXPORTS BY TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as the minister reporting for the wheat board. It arises out of reports in prairie wheat pool publications to the effect that Canada is having to forgo additional export grain sales because of rail transport difficulties. Is this a fact and, if so, is the government possibly accepting such a situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order. The hon. member cannot ask at this time whether a statement is true.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received a telegram from the associated chambers of commerce of the Peace River district asking the government to reconsider their decision not to participate in a program of aid to distressed areas in the Peace River district? If so, has he replied to this official dispatch from the area in such a way as to give effect to what I hope are his humanitarian instincts, by giving an affirmative answer to this telegram?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have received several communications from organizations in the Peace River area. I cannot remember specifically the one from that particular organization, but it may well be I have received such a communication.
February 2, 1966

With respect to the further inquiry concerning P.F.A.A. payments, I informed the house on January 26 that I had arranged for the director of P.F.A.A. to go to the Peace River area to investigate the situation. After consulting with local officials the director has recommended that inspections be carried out in 44 townships which had not applied before November 19. Local officials agreed these were townships where there was a possibility of qualifying for payments and authority has been given to the director to proceed on the basis of his recommendation.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the central government's relations with Quebec and the latter's attitude toward Ottawa and the other provinces.
The recent demise of the Fulton-Favreau formula to amend the constitution which was rejected solely by Quebec, emphasizes the political and constitutional tensions which are tearing the country. One of the main reasons for the rejection of the formula by the people of Quebec is the central government's refusal to grant special status to Quebec.
When the present Prime Minister gave his interpretation of the Fulton-Favreau formula in a press release dated November 3, 1964, he said on page 4, paragraph G:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There is absolutely nothing in the provisions which gives directly or indirectly, implicity or explicity. a special status to any one province within the Canadian federation. It is equally impossible to contend that the delegation clause was written with that intent, since such delegation must have the consent of the federal parliament and of at least four provinces.
Why, Mr. Speaker, are the political and constitutional agreements of 1867 and the reality of 1966 stubbornly not recognized?
The day that a Canadian leader who neither uses ill-assorted tactics which create confusion nor takes an attitude of autocratic arrogance which prevents dialogue forms a team by appealing to right-thinking people and proposes a fair and realistic solution to our conflicts, then, Canadians from coast to coast will stop distrusting each other and the country will be able to make giant strides in a spirit of agreement and open co-operation.
Supply

Mr. Allard
Does the province of Quebec enjoy a special status, beside the ordinary provincial status, like the other provinces? I say yes, Mr. Speaker, mainly for the following reasons: first, Quebec is a province different from the others. To say that Quebec is different from the other provinces is not a reference in particular, to geographical features, its economy and its administration, because all the Canadian provinces have their own characteristics. This means rather that Quebec considers itself as the stronghold of the French Canadian people and that its inhabitants are raised with a different mentality, culture, education and institutions.
That is why, when Ottawa tries continuously to set up, in all respects, uniform administrative standards for the whole country, although these standards may respond quite well to the English Canadian mentality, Ottawa comes up against the French Canadian group which requires special consideration from the educational, cultural, social, civilian and professional standpoints. Besides, a particular status is nothing new; it was recognized in the very text of our Canadian constitution. Just like in 1774 and in 1791, by the Quebec Act and the Constitutional Act, the B.N.A. Act of 1867 acknowledged special privileges and consideration for the province of Quebec, because it is the national home of French Canadians.
Twelve sections of the B.N.A. Act bear witness to it, namely, section 22 (2), section 23 (6), sections 51, 71, 73, 80, 92, subsections 13, 93, 94, 98, 129 and 133. These sections deal with more particularly, the special qualifications of the senators from Quebec, the composition of the Quebec Legislative assembly, the special qualifications of the members of the Quebec legislative council, the fixed number of federal members from Quebec, the exclusive provincial authority in matters of ownership and civil law, authority made exclusive because of the demands of Quebec, the exclusive provincial authority in education, again because of the different characteristics of French Canadians in this respect, and the impossibility for Ottawa to give Quebec the same law as the other provinces, the necessity of choosing as judges of the Quebec courts members of the Bar of that province, the sole authority of the Quebec legislature to amend acts in force since 1774 and, finally, compulsory bilingualism in Quebec and Ottawa.

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Allard
Even if section 133 of the constitution on bilingualism is mostly a guarantee for the English minority in Quebec, this section is no less a distinctive feature of our province.
Nowadays, we often see Ottawa passing bills suited to the way of life of English Canadians, while Quebec reacts differently because of its different mentality. Let us mention grants to universities, federal loans to students, school allowances, the pension plan, the opting out from joint programs; if my memory serves me well, the Quebec provincial government has withdrawn from 29 joint programs over the past few years. It always seems to be the only provincial government to do so. Then you have this special attitude, this constant, uniform and unilateral reaction of Quebec to the Fulton-Favreau formula and to the provinces' jurisdiction in international affairs.
This special status which is explicitly recognized in the British North America Act-that is in the constitution of our country-has taken larger proportions and has been more evident these past few years in the fields I have just mentioned and particularly so in regard to the following matters:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It can be said that this particular status, asked for by Quebec, deals with education, culture, social security, economic planning, taxation, authority in international matters, development of natural resources, repatriation of all Quebec subjects, including the Eskimos, and the fair delimitation of its territory, as well as the problems of the Que-bec-Labrador border.
This particular status keeps on expanding. We find it every week, often in the attitudes and the stands taken by the Premier of Quebec and his colleagues of the provincial cabinet.
They are trying to extend this particular status into the field of family allowances and social security pensions.
Hon. Rene Levesque, Minister for Family and Welfare, made the point clear. He said during his last visit here in Ottawa, while attending a federal-provincial conference, that it was Quebec's intention, especially as far as family allowances and old age pensions are concerned, to take over completely in the social field, in order to satisfy Quebec's aspirations and characteristics according to co-ordinated and efficient social tenets.

As explained by another Quebec minister, Hon. Pierre Laporte, this special status requires control over everything related to Quebec families and, indirectly, over mortgage loans and housing.
When we hear various Quebeckers and other public men in Quebec indicate the extent of this special status, they take position on the monetary policy, the indirect taxes, while insisting on a greater share of direct taxes, Quebec participation in federal organizations, such as the Bank of Canada, the Senate, a constitutional court, as well as a cultural medium through a Quebec radio and TV network.
Special status for Quebec, Mr. Speaker, takes the form of an unconditional fiscal equivalent. In many areas I have mentioned, other provinces than Quebec could choose such an equivalent, but because of their mentality, the majority of English speaking Canadians readily accept that Ottawa interfere in everything to influence the economy and the tax structure and to provide equal opportunities to rich and poor areas alike.
I feel that the present tax option is still a temporary device; it is too vague and too uncertain and it leads to an administrative mess.
I understand that, until now, that option has enabled Quebec to achieve special status by gradual occupancy. But the time has come for men of good faith and for courageous and responsible legislators to recognize and define the particular status of Quebec in a framework of dynamic Canadian federalism respectful of the pluralistic character of society.
In order to eliminate constant and divergent pressures, in order to lessen conflicts and misunderstanding, it is now desirable to set about writing a new constitution, which will give the country a positive and bicultural federalism and recognize for Quebec a particular status in some well-defined fields.
The proclamation of a particular status for Quebec cannot confine Quebeckers to a minority role, as was stated by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau).
On the contrary-


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I never maintained such a thing; the hon. member read that in some misleading newspaper report.


Maurice Allard: If the hon. member finds my statement incomplete, I would ask him-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not incomplete, erroneous.
February 2, 1966


Maurice Allard: -to take the floor this afternoon and reply to that statement he has allegedly made in a speech at Loyola College.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member allow me to speak, Mr. Speaker?


Maurice Allard: The hon. member will notice that I have not yet resumed my seat, Mr. Speaker. According to the rules, he cannot make lengthy interjections. However, I urge him, after my brief remarks, to take the floor and to speak clearly and intelligibly for a change, as he claims that we have not correctly interpreted his attitude on the matter of a special status for the province of Quebec.
The premier of Quebec maintains, to the contrary, that a special status for Quebec would be a condition for Canada's survival, because the province of Quebec would then acquire a feeling of equality it does not have at this time, and things being straightened out, the two ethnic groups could operate a rapprochement that would humiliate nobody.
I hope that this statement of the premier of Quebec agrees with the feelings of the hon. member for Mount Royal, because personally, I must say that, according to the comments received by all the newspapers in and outside Quebec concerning this statement may by the premier in the Chamber of Commerce of Ste. Foy, he expressed very well the feelings of Quebeckers and French Canadians who wish to obtain a special status in a revised constitution adapted to the problems of 1966.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the editorials in the newspaper Le Devoir for December 13, 1965, signed by a well known journalist, Mr. Claude Ryan, and in the Globe and Mail of December 11, 1965.
This is what the Toronto paper says about the special status of Quebec-if the hon. member for Mount Royal takes the floor later on, I would like him to tell us his reactions and comments concerning the opinion of English Canadians who already show a rather progressive attitude toward a Quebec reality within a new federation. I quote an extract of this article of the Globe and Mail dated December 11, 1965:

That this special status exists is now accepted by most informed Canadians, however grudgingly. Most also accept the necessity for a rewriting of the constitution, although what form this will take is still a matter for full debate... A redrawing of the Canadian constitution being inevitable,
Supply-Mr. Allard
however, what matters is how the task is approached. On the one side must be Quebecers with the positive attitude of Mr. Ryan, ready to discuss fairly without using the blackmail threat of separation. The others at the table must have left behind laments for the One Canada that might have been and must act realistically to meet the demands of the new Canadian federalism.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

We must then, Mr. Speaker, define as soon as possible the special status of the province of Quebec so as to create more coherence and more serenity in Canada.
We are not short of suggestions since, on January 19,	1966, some hon. members
proposed in this house the setting up of a parliamentary committee or the calling of a constitutional conference. What has been the government's reaction until now? It has given no efficient answer to this urgent and basic problem concerning constitutional and political reactions. I hope it will not wait longer so that contempt and turpitude will not replace a true and definite rapprochement between the two great founding nations of our country. Mr. Speaker, it is not very pleasant to hear other members talking among themselves, when they could take the trouble to listen to what we have to say about the aspirations of the people of Quebec, who expect so much from legislators on this matter. When a member has taken the trouble to study the matter and is acting as the spokesman of his constituents, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that members should listen and then take part in the debate.
This is a matter of vital importance. Too many Canadians from coast to coast are still asking: "What's going on in Quebec" and "What do they want".
Well, if you are interested to know why Quebeckers and French Canadians are dissatisfied, you should first listen and keep silent, consider the matter and have an exchange of views. This is an important problem. I see the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who in this house and elsewhere has taken an attitude which often expresses the aspirations of his constituents and I congratulate him on it. I hope that he will listen to my speech instead of trying to interrupt me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If you want us to exchange viewpoints, we cannot keep silent.


Maurice Allard: I know that the member for Mount Royal is eager to speak and we are

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Allard,
eager to hear him, because his statement at the beginning of 1966, reported in several newspapers, has really spread consternation, not so much among his constituents of Mount Royal, who cannot represent a large part of French Canadians, but among the people of the province of Quebec and in the heart and mind of French Canadians.
The spontaneous outcry from the newspapers and the people interested in these matters was that the hon. member for Mount Royal-I hope he will appreciate this in a few moments, if he has not already done so-made a statement which runs counter to the views, the opinions, the wishes or the aspirations of the Quebec people and of the French Canadian nation. I am glad to be able to tell him that today in this house. The time has come for him to take his responsibilities, to stand up this afternoon and to tell us what he thinks of Quebec, and to what lengths he is prepared to go to give Quebec, in a renovated confederation, the vitality and the powers that belong to that province so that it can thrive, having obtained a fair and equal treatment.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the remarks I find myself forced to make during my speech. I believe that answer is appropriate. I think certain hon. members should rise and speak this afternoon on those important matters. Be assured that those problems will not be settled automatically.
In this field the most noteworthy opinion came not from a Canadian but from an American university professor who, hardly one and a half years ago, came to Canada to witness at first hand that new and dynamic quality which is going to revitalize the province of Quebec, as well as to study Canadian political and constitutional problems. He spent three months of study and observation in Canada and in Quebec. I am referring to Professor Griffith, but I cannot remember the university to which he belongs. Here is the piece of advice which that foreigner, a realistic and practical man, not prejudiced against any school of thought, submitted at the close of his investigations: he tells English Canada to stop banking on the good old submissiveness of days gone by. Because there is less talk about separatism and less trouble, people think that the problems have been solved. It just is not true. I ask hon. members from other provinces to visit the riding of Sherbrooke, as well as the other ridings in Quebec, when the house is

not sitting or even during a week end. Whether they come from the Western provinces, the Maritimes or British Columbia, they are welcome to visit that beautiful riding which, like many others in the Eastern Townships, is an example of the true Canadi-anism which should actuate every Canadian.
As a matter of fact, the riding of Sherbrooke, located in the heart of the Eastern Townships, was dominated about a hundred years ago by the English element. Today, it is mostly French. But the two ethnic groups co-exist alongside many other ethnic groups which came to settle there. There is no problem, no conflict, no tension, no pressure. If Canada was like the riding of Sherbrooke, and other ridings in the Eastern Townships, you would not hear people say that the province of Quebec wants this or that or that Ottawa should do this and that.
From the day when it is no longer necessary to struggle in the midst of political and constitutional conflicts, Mr. Speaker, Canada will take gigantic steps toward understanding, fraternity and friendship.
The government and the members have to take their responsibilities and should not leave exclusively to royal commissions, working committees, newsmen and commentators the task of pondering on this question.
As legislators we have to consider the question. Now, during this session, and not in ten months but right now, the present government, which for three years showed goodwill toward these difficult problems, should establish a parliamentary committee, comprising members on both sides of the house, to study the research work undertaken by these commissions, and in so doing, promote a dialogue, in good faith, among legislators aware of their responsibilities.
If our only function here is to ratify statements made outside the house or prepared by various departmental officials, our role here is not justified and we might as well be replaced by robots. But we have not been elected for that purpose.
Nineteen hundred and sixty six will be a most important year; what with the Carter Commission's report and findings which experts are now examining, and the Quebec Belanger Commission's report which has just been referred to and which we have not read because it has not been distributed yet. This is apparently a voluminous and most interesting report.
There is a committee on the constitution in Quebec which has been operative for two
February 2, 1966

years. The Quebec government, seeing this problem cropping up, set up a committee on the Canadian constitution to define and detect the definite trend of Quebec's future within a Canadian confederation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Here is a Quebec provincial government which, by the creation of a committee made up of government members and members of the opposition, discharges its responsibilities. Those legislators take up their responsibilities at the proper place, in the legislature and not in the halls and lobbies.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is now our turn in Ottawa to act in the same way. A few days ago, at the time the Fulton-Favreau formula was buried, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicated that the question, or this type of question, could well be referred to a parliamentary committee that would be created to study federal-provincial relations.
At last here is a statement that must be followed by positive action. By the end of this session in 10 or 12 months, or late in 1966, that is, after a hundred years of federative life, this question wil have to be settled.
We should not be too hard on the fathers of confederation. They attempted in good faith at a specific time to solve the problems of the day. They could not foresee everything on this Canadian soil. They could not foresee all kinds of inventions, the existence of oil and mining rights on the continental shelf, the advent of planes, radio and television. That is why a lot of things are not dealt with in the constitution of 1867, but are nevertheless in effect.
Well, it is for legislators of 1966 to think, to discuss, to dialogue, to define. We cannot continue in darkness. Even if you call that co-operative federalism, we just cannot limit ourselves to letting basic constitutional problems be solved by the fantasy of governments or politicians that succeed one another without any possibility of defining jurisdictions. That is what this country now lacks.
The federal government can be a strong and powerful central government. I suggest that it is important to define the measures which have been provided for by the 16 subjects- and probably others which have come up since then-contained in section 92 of the constitution.
Instead of the government saying simply that it wants to be a strong government, it should specify in what field it wants to be
2303a-40
Supply-Mr. Sharp
strong in 1966. It can, now, be strong in new fields which the Fathers of Confederation could not foresee.
The province of Quebec and the other provinces want to become eventually strong and powerful. They want to flourish, not as mere offshoots, but as autonomous powers, ir the field of legislation and finance. It would also be useful to define the weaknesses of our national and provincial policy. First let us define our constitutional policy, so that politicians and federal and provincial legislators who want a bona fide understanding will be able to reach it.
We can travel from one end of the country to the other, to Vancouver, Halifax, Fredericton. Here we meet members from all parts of the country. We eat together, have a smoke or a chat together behind the curtains. So why not take advantage of this session to assume our responsibilities since we represent every part of the country?
Why not start, officially and not informally, by defining the orientation of our constitutional policy, in order to create a Canadian constitution and then establish the positive and cultural policy of which I indicated, on January 28, the ten main features, with a special status for Quebec.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak very briefly, as I said in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to make a few points on the application and the implications of United States guidelines on direct investment in Canada. First of all, I should like to make it quite clear, as I think I did during the question period and as I did in a speech I gave earlier this session, that I am not defending the United States guidelines on direct investment. As Minister of Finance I advised the government of the United States that I thought they were unwise, both economically and politically, to apply these guidelines to Canada. Therefore in what I have to say I am maintaining the position that it would be in the interests of both Canada and the United States if Canada were exempt from these guidelines.
The first general point I should like to make is that in discussing the problem of the effect of these United States measures on Canada we must recognize that the United States has a balance of payments problem and that these guidelines, as well as other measures, are related to that problem alone. Now,

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Sharp
some experts disagree as to the nature of the United States international financial problems. However, I believe we have to recognize that the United States must be the judge of its own responsibilities and its own position.
Undoubtedly the United States government is concerned about its balance of payments position. If it were not concerned, it would not be employing the extraordinary measures it is employing. This leads me to the second point and that is that one should not make the assumption that is sometimes made, I notice, that the United States government has embarked upon a new and permanent policy of guidelines on direct investment by international companies based in the United States. If that were so, if in fact we were convinced that the United States had embarked upon a new, permanent policy, there would be very serious cause for concern on the part of not only Canadians but the world at large.
For the time being at least I think one ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government and accept the views expressed by members of that administration. If I may, I should like to quote the views expressed by Mr. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, on January 17 as reported in the New York Times of that day. He said that the voluntary balance of payments program should be ended by February of next year. The more important part of what he said is the following, as outlined in this article:
In discussing the ending of the nrogram a year from now. Mr. Connor said the government recognized that restraint on direct investment, in particular. was against the longer-run interest of the nation and of the balance of payments, because it would ultimately reduce both exports and income from investments.
On that point I think there is agreement between the government of the United States and the government of Canada, and even by Mr. Kierans, that these measures are not in the interests of the United States in the longer run. I think we must take it for granted that the United States has adopted these policies temporarily and that they are not part of a new orientation of United States thinking.
The third point, and one that I have emphasized before in this house but which I should like to emphasize again, is that it is in Canadian interests and in the interests of the western alliance that the United States should overcome its difficulties. Our attitude

as Canadians should be one of co-operation by all reasonable means. This does not mean we should be reluctant to express our views with frankness and vigour to the United States government, as we have done. I have no complaint at all about the fact that others in this country have been expressing very vigorous views about the application of these policies to Canada.
It does seem to me, however, that we should not go out of our way to increase the difficulties of the United States because we do want them to overcome their problems so that they can resume the policies they were following when there were no restraints on the movement of capital in or out of the United States.
Finally, I do wish to make it clear once again, as I did in answer to a question today, that the Canadian government did not accept the application of United States guidelines on direct investment to Canada. These guidelines on direct investment did not form any part of our understanding with the United States government. In December I announced the terms of the agreement with the United States government which related to access to the United States market for long term funds and freedom from the United States interest equalization tax, in return for which we agreed to try to achieve a target on our reserves. This was our agreement.
In so far as the guidelines are concerned, we are free to take whatever action seems to be appropriate to protect Canadian interests including, if necessary, as I suggested earlier today, guidelines of our own. For example, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) at my suggestion is examining the effects of these guidelines upon the trade of Canada and will no doubt be talking to the heads of Canadian companies that might be affected by the guidelines applicable to their United States parents.
I intimated also in answer to a question today something about our attitude on the financial implications of these guidelines. I should like to amplify that. The United States balance of payments position is basically protected by the agreement on reserves. It would be most undesirable if the effect of the United States guidelines were to induce strong new pressures of a distorting sort on credit and capital markets in Canada. This would be harmful to Canada and in view of the over-all character of our arrangement
February 2, 1966

with the United States it would be of no benefit to that country since it would merely push Canadian borrowers into the new issue market in the United States.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The Governor of the Bank of Canada on December 10, immediately after the publication of the American guidelines, informed the chief executive officers of the five largest Canadian banks that it was his hope and expectation that if the banks found themselves confronted with new applications for credit resulting from the American guidelines at a time when they were unable to meet in full the normal demands for business loans for credit-worthy customers, they would continue to look after customers who had relied on them in the past to meet their financial needs. The chief executive officers indicated that they agreed this was the proper course for them to follow. The governor's views were reiterated at a meeting with the chief executive officers of all the banks held on January 5.
So far as long term issues of American subsidiaries are concerned, I would hope and expect that there will be no abnormal recourse to the Canadian capital market, but if there were the government would have to decide what action to take. As I mentioned in my speech last Thursday, the United States new issue market is open to American subsidiaries as well as to other Canadian companies. If abnormal borrowing in our capital market developed, this would merely push other Canadian borrowers into the new issue market in the United States and so provide no benefit whatever to the United States balance of payments.
These are the general comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the questions that I answered today. May I just say in conclusion that this is a time, as I said on an earlier occasion, for vigilance and watchfulness on the part of the Canadian government and indeed on the part of Canadians. May I suggest, in the interests of Canada and in the interests of helping the United States overcome its problems, which have repercussions upon us in Canada, that it is also a time for restraint, for forbearance and for understanding.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? I noted, Mr. Minister, that you placed considerable reliance on your belief that the United 23033-40J
Supply-Mr. Sharp
States policy is not going to be a permanent one, which belief I gather was obtained from statements made, I think, by the Secretary of Commerce. On what did he base his hopes that the United States position with respect to its balance of payments problem is going to be altered except by the imposition of more or less permanent guidelines? Will not the heavy expenditures which are continuing cause the same problems for the United States that they have caused? Is there going to be any change?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can only observe in this respect that there has been a considerable improvement in the basic situation over the past year in the United States. I would not venture an opinion whether the United States will get out of its difficulties but I do think it is basic to accept the premise that the United States is only following those policies because of its balance of payments situation. We hope they will get out of that, and we are certain they have not embarked upon that policy for any ulterior motive.


George Harris Hees: Does the United States government realize that we have a very serious imbalance of payments with them? Has the United States taken that into consideration in applying these guidelines to Canada in particular?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that we were very successful in convincing the United States that Canada was not contributing to its problems and that the situation described by my hon. friend was one that contributed to the reserves of the United States. It is for this reason that Canada is given this very preferred position, the importance of which I cannot overestimate, by which we have free and full access to the United States long term market without the application of the interest equalization tax. In this respect we are in a very preferred position.


George Harris Hees: One further supplementary question. Has it been made clear to the United States that not only is Canada not influencing their situation but that by taking the steps they are taking in applying these guidelines to Canada they are very adversely affecting the Canadian situation regarding our serious balance of payments position with the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 2, 1966

Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know yet whether the direct investment guidelines are going to have these effects. They could. We did, however, point out to the United States that if they did the only result would be to affect the interests of both Canada and the United States. I regret very much that the United States has not exempted Canada, but they might still say that it would be the better part of wisdom to accept our advice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble) was on the list and he has very kindly permitted me to speak at this time.
In the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the questions asked by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) have not been answered. Indeed, the attitude taken by the minister was simply this: the United States has not seen fit to give full consideration to Canada's serious balance of payments position with the United States. Indeed, the minister said with respect to the guidelines that there was deep regret that the United States had not exempted Canada.
From the time this government has come into office it has been apparent that whatever decision is made by the United States, whether or not it affects Canada detrimentally, this government simply adopts the diplomatic way of saying, "You really should not do this to us. This is not quite fair. We hope that at some time in the future, it not being a permanent policy, you will take steps so that Canada will not be adversely affected by your action."
While the minister was speaking I sent out for Hansard. I have to go back to the 19th of January when a question was asked in the house by the hon. member for Northumberland. As found on page 15 he said:
Mr. Sneaker. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When he made his statement on December 6 last approving the guidelines laid down by the United States government for the operation of American subsidiairies in Canada. was he aware that these guidelines would restrict the operation of these companies in Canada and thereby adversely affect the growth of the Canadian economy?
The minister said:
I did not approve the guidelines announced by the United States government. That was a decision they made on their own account.
Then there are some further questions, but the last answer of the minister cannot be explained on any other ground than just


brushing the whole thing aside. On his part there has been a disregard of the necessity of Canada taking a stand. It is simple to say to the United States, please, please do not do this to us. He ended by saying, as found on page 16:
In the discussions that I had on behalf of Canada with the United States government, my main concern was to assure that Canadian industry, provincial governments and municipalities would continue to have access to the United States market for long term funds.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he added these words:
That was accomplished, and I think the results have been beneficial to Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that attitude of patting the desk in approval of his own words is quite in keeping with what we expect from the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is just the sentiment of it.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing more attractive to him than his own words. We are all more or less like that. But the fact remains that that has been the attitude toward the United States. No serious endeavour has been made by his government because of the actions by this government under the previous minister of finance when on two occasions measures were threatened against the United States.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On two occasions Canada stood up and the government said they were going to do something but then they had to run for cover. That is what this government has had to do all along the line. I presume that the Minister of Finance, on the basis of the experience of his predecessor, decided that the best way to palliate a situation that takes no account of Canada's serious and increasing balance of payments problem is to be constrained to hope that all will be well at some time in the future.
All one has to do is to read the words of Hon. Eric Kierans. It was interesting that the minister went further than any member of the government has gone in reference to that gentleman when he said: "Some of the things he said I agree with; others I do not agree with." It would be interesting to have the minister explain what portion of Mr. Kierans' speech he does agree with, for the essence of
February 2, 1966

Mr. Kierans' speech was that this government has failed to protect the interests of Canadians. Let that be perfectly clear. I am not going to go into the question of loss of contracts by Canadian stamping companies because we brought that question up the other day. All along the line this government, in its desire to establish for itself the reputation of being filled with the milk of diplomacy, will accept anything, will stand for anything, and will go no further than to say in effect: "Now, if you don't watch out we have the right to act and we will act".
We have the admission by the minister today of the potentially dangerous and detrimental effects of the action by the United States, and the admission that it is a government that makes a protest which is not in writing but verbal-one can imagine the verbal slap on the wrist to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States-on a matter as serious as this is to the Canadian economy.
We have been given an ex parte statement by the minister that his verbal protestations were as strong as the nature of the case demanded. That is not enough. But more will be said about that later. I know the minister wants to leave. I will not be returning to this matter now and I appreciate his staying while I make these remarks.
I now want to say a word regarding estimates generally and the responsibility of this House of Commons to look carefully into expenditures. The government takes the attitude that the major purpose of parliament is the passing of legislation even though every principle of political science and practical parliamentary government asserts that the major responsibility is the examination of supply. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) dealt with this matter yesterday.
Across this nation the Liberal party is spreading the propaganda that it is a questionable attitude by the opposition to move votes of non-confldence. They are assisted in this by some pundits close to the throne, who suggest that this is something abnormal, that what the opposition is doing in moving amendments is holding up parliament and preventing the government, which has no plan anyhow, from bringing in that which they have not got. The very paucity of their program is apparent from an examination of the Speech from the Throne. They are leaving the impression that here is a government
Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker which is trying to do something that the opposition is preventing it from doing because the opposition moves votes of nonconfidence.
If hon. gentlemen opposite would speak honestly, they would admit there is no way for an opposition to secure the opinion of parliament on matters which it believes it is necessary to raise in the interests of the country than to move a vote of non-confidence. There is no other medium. Do you hear Prime Minister Wilson of the United Kingdom complaining because regularly there are votes of non-confidence? Nothing of the kind. They are essential to government.
It was embarrassing to the government to have to vote on the question of old age pensions. It exacerbated their finer sensibilities. I realize how badly they feel, after the event, about their vote on the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax. These things embarrass. Because they embarrass them, Mr. Speaker, they engage in propaganda to the effect that there ought not to be votes of non-confidence.
I like to look at the record, Mr. Speaker. I know there are members who have just been elected to the House of Commons who have not read the record. They have lived the mythology of Liberalism. The record is clear. When we were a minority government in 1957-58, did the principle that votes of nonconfidence were improper apply? Did we ever raise objection when we were on a razor's edge? Not at all. As far as the Liberal party at that time was concerned, they did not move immediate votes of non-confidence but whenever votes were moved by another party the Liberal party found it necessary to vote against the government.
The government complains about the number of votes of non-confidence. Between October, 1957, and January, 1958, there were nine amendments and subamendments moved. Has parliament changed? Has this principle which has been accepted through the years suddenly been found to be such that it is necessary to cast it into the discard because it is embarrassing to a government? When did this reformation in their thinking take place?
In 1962-63 we were again in a minority position following the election in June. Did they have the same views then? During that period of time, Mr. Speaker, eight amendments and subamendments were moved in the house. When we had a very large majority in the House of Commons the Liberals
February 2, 1966

Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker could not hope to defeat us on a numerical basis. Yet they moved amendments of nonconfidence regularly.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Where were the pundits and political scientists who now say this should not be done? Here are the figures as I have been able to put them together. In 1958, following the election of March 31, there were 11 amendments and subamendments expressing nonconfidence. In 1959 there were also 11. In 1960 there were 13. In 1961 there were 13 and in the three months of the 1963 session there were 5.
The propaganda is designed to conceal from the people the fact that the present government is afraid to face issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They want us to treat them in the way this government apparently approaches the United States in its dealings with that country. They want us to complain but they do not want us to assert. They want us to speak quietly. They do not want us to speak with determination.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, speak well of the hon. member for Red Deer. When I heard today of difficulties in other parts of the world I felt the time was about due for that hon. gentleman to be sent on another pilgrimage by the government.
But to return. Our responsibility is to examine the expenditures of the government. In discharging our responsibility we would have been entitled to six supply motions, according to the rules, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said yesterday. We agreed to dispense with four of them. There has been no examination of the $7 billion of expenditures in the last fiscal year except for a few hours spent on external affairs. Why? Because of the precipitous haste with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) rushed to the country on the basis of advice from pundits imported from abroad, from columnists and from Gallup pollsters. Parliament was left in the lurch. No examination of expenditures was made.
If the government's contention were accepted, members opposite could get away, metaphorically, with murder. They could get

away with expenditures which have no justification whatever, because parliament has had no chance to examine them. There has been no opportunity.
I will deal in a moment with the report of the Auditor General. I have just had the opportunity of glancing over it. Seven billion dollars have been spent with no accounting, no examination. The government says: Do not have supply motions, they embarrass us, they hold up parliament, they interfere with a government full of vim and vigour. But no vitality. This is the kind of fiction they are indulging in. We have said we want to examine the accounts. We want to find out whether the money of the Canadian people is being wasted. We do not intend to allow the government to have a blank cheque.
That is what they have been doing -spending, spending, spending, multiplying expenditures, making expenditures in some cases without any justification, spending wildly without allowing parliament to examine their expenditures.
If I had made such a statement the day before yesterday, hon. gentlemen opposite would have risen in their wrath. They are quiet today because they know that in the last few hours the Auditor General of Canada has revealed what has been going on. I intend to make some references which are based on evidence contained in the report of the Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, that report is a lexicon of laxity and wild expenditure. Never since the horses were on the payroll has there been such a condemnation of a government in an Auditor General's report. I do not intend to cover it all. We shall have plenty of opportunity. But I do intend to mention a few of the matters which are dealt with here in a general way.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) here. He comes from a constituency which receives mention in this report and I am sure he will be the first to rise and explain the circumstances in connection with the Sorel shipyard and the purchase of a ferry. I am waiting to hear from him because I have been waiting for him to speak for a long while. The hon. gentleman now occupies a segment of a portfolio. Nearly everything was taken away from him because it was felt he could not effectively carry out the duties of Minister of Justice. He was left with a few little odds and ends. He has the name and the others have the position in this trifurcation of his department which has taken place.
February 2, 1966

The Department of Transport issued a press release on April 30, 1965, which stated:
The newly-converted ferry which is shortly to enter service on the run between Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, is to be re-named "Patrick Morris" by Mrs. Lucien Cardin, wife of the Minister of Public Works, at Sorel, Que., on Saturday, May 1.
The ceremony will take place at the yard of Marine Industries Limited, where the refit and conversion of the vessel was caried out, following acceptance of the vessel by the Department of Transport.
Let us look at the record in this connection. It is an interesting record. It shows wastefulness and worse. Here is what is stated at page 84 of the report:
A Sorel shipyard had obtained an option on May 8, 1964, to purchase this vessel at Jacksonville, Florida, from its United States owners for a price of U.S. $1,200,000. The option, good until May 25th, was duly exercised and the vessel was then sold to the Department of Transport on May 26, 1964 for $1,513,000.
That is a good return for a few days effort. They made $313,000, less the expense naturally, of bringing the ship to Sorel from the place of purchase.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: They also repaired it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I will come to the repairs. I am glad the minister knows. If I can once get him into conversation we are going to have an interesting time. I am going to welcome the opportunity to speak with him. He says, what about the repairs? Well, let us see about that. He has not read this. If he had he would not have made that interruption. It reads:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On July 6, 1964 the department requested authority to enter into a further contract with the Sorel shipyard for conversion and refit of the vessel.
That is a month and a half later.
It was estimated that this work would exceed the $750,000 figure given to the Treasury Board on May 19th, the submission stating that the costs would total $755,000, plus $481,000 as a contingency to cover extra work...
Then it says a little later:
It was not proposed to invite competitive tenders because of the time factor...
The hon. gentleman says they fixed it up. They did. He is so right. Let us get the figures. It is obvious that he has not read this; otherwise he would not have asked the question.
The Treasury Board replied on July 29th that it would be prepared to authorize entry into a contract on a price to be negotiated basis on the understanding that a realistic target incentive contract would be submitted to the board for approval
Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker after the vessel was opened up and specifications had been prepared.
It then developed that the work required exceeded all previous estimates and it was October 1964 before the department negotiated a contract with the shipyard on the basis contemplated by the Treasury Board, setting the estimated conversion cost at $1,844,000...
No wonder the hon. gentleman says they repaired it.


Some hon. Members:: They fixed it.


John George Diefenbaker: The report continues:
Costs incurred under this contract for the conversion and refit of the vessel, which was accepted by the department on May 1, 1965, amounted to $2,447,000.


Mr. Vinceni:: But they fixed it.


John George Diefenbaker: When the hon. gentleman mentioned repairs he certainly knew whereof he spoke. Does he justify this type of expenditure?


Mr. Cashin:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, absolutely.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Is the right hon. gentleman aware of the reason this had to be proceeded with with all haste? It was because his administration for six years ignored the problem of transportation between Port aux Basques and North Sydney.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was to be a question. I welcome the interposition of the hon. gentleman. For him I have a great deal of respect, but at the moment he is speaking out of the corner of his mouth. You cannot justify expenditures like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman will not become a parliamentary secretary on the basis of an interruption such as that. Let him beware. The way to get to be a parliamentary secretary, as one gentleman found out, was to make most derogatory remarks about the Prime Minister. He is not in the house at the moment so I will not mention it, though I am not recommending it either as a means whereby appointments as parliamentary secretaries may be attained. Let us go on to other examples.
At one time I mentioned to the former minister of justice how utterly irregular it was that Mr. Justice Meunier, convicted in the courts, out on bail awaiting appeal,
February 2, 1966

Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker should be receiving his pay as a judge. Since then his conviction has been quashed and a new trial ordered.
I do not know what the negative shake of the head on the part of the minister means.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I can tell the right hon. gentleman that Justice Meunier is not getting his salary now.


John George Diefenbaker: Since when? Tell me that. Since when?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Since the appeal court brought down its decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, of all the convulsing answers. He was convicted and sentenced to two years, I believe, for wrongdoing, for crime, and the government paid him while he was still under sentence but when the court of appeal set aside his conviction and ordered a new trial they stopped paying him. Mr. Speaker, we need a new Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Here is what the Auditor General says at page 92 of his report:
In this report we have dealt with 37 cases of non-productive payments estimated at $22,737,000. Of these, 21 are included in the foregoing paragraphs while the remaining 16 cases are as follows:
1. Payment of salary to a judge during a period of leave of absence-Pending the disposal of criminal charges that had been laid against him, a judge of the superior court of Quebec was granted leave of absence from May 1, 1964 under the authority of the governor in council.


George James McIlraith: The law requires it.


John George Diefenbaker: The covering order in council did not stipulate whether leave would be with or without pay. On October 23, 1964 the judge was convicted on one count of perjury and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. He appealed the conviction and in October 1965 the Quebec court of appeal granted him a new trial. To March 31, 1965 the judge had been paid $19,250 in salary while on leave.
The minister says it is all over now. The conviction has been quashed so he does not get paid. I mention this matter because of the fact that I had referred to it earlier and the then minister did not regard it as a serious one.
At page 29 of his report the Auditor General deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Over and over again I have suggested we should have a full examination of the C.B.C. but we have never been able to get it. At page 29 the Auditor General deals with payments made by the C.B.C. for work not performed amounting, as I recall it,

to several hundred thousand dollars. They made payments to employees for work they never did. I said several hundred thousand dollars but now I have found the exact spot in the report and the actual figure is $450,000 It says:
The majority of the employees receiving this compensation were credited for hours not worked... The corporation has advised us that it regards payment of compensation calculated in this manner as proper, having regard to the effect of scheduling requirements for its present studio facilities, the availability of artists, the exigencies of actuality broadcasts and the nature of broadcast program production.
The Auditor General says it is an unproductive type of expenditure, a type which he was asked to bring to the attention of the house. His report is a massive piece of work revealing evidence about this government's administration which, to say the least, goes even beyond bumbling and fumbling.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I think the next example to which I intend to refer caps it all. It is in connection with forced retirements from our armed services. During the election campaign the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said there were no rules forcing men to retire, but I know that these rules exist.
At this time we are suffering from a shortage of men in our forces. Of all the considerations surrounding retirements, I think the worst appears at page 56 of this report and must take its place in the annals of expenditures that no one can justify. At the bottom of page 55 appears the following statement:
During the year six cases were noted in which officers and men released on pension had been credited with pensionable service dating in one case from the age of nine and in five other cases from ages eleven and twelve.
In the Middle Ages they had the children's crusade and in 1965 we had a Department of National Defence which, in order to get rid of people and give them the highest pension possible, dated enlistment dates back to ages nine, eleven and twelve. What manner of thinking would activate a government to permit that kind of thing?
The report then states at page 56:
File documentation in respect of the early service was fragmentary-
I would think it would be fragmentary. One can just see these individuals marching in, one aged nine and five age eleven or twelve. The report states:
File documentation . . . was fragmentary, statutory declarations being accepted.
February 2, 1966

Mr. Speaker, even the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) smiles at this. Is this something that we can laugh about? Does it not indicate a government that is prodigal with the people's money? I read on:
In response to an audit office query about the officer whose service began at age nine, departmental officers replied that while enlistment at this age was contrary to regulations, the officer had not been discharged as being underage and consequently they were satisfied that he had served.
The next sentence states:
In addition, they noted that the review board had agreed that the time claimed was in fact valid and since the officer had elected to contribute to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account he was eligible to count the service as pensionable.
They not only accepted the statutory declaration in this regard, they had a review board justifying this juvenile army of freedom. Mr. Speaker, we must speak about these things but these are things they do not want to hear about. They did not want us to examine these things. We have never had a chance to consider the $7 billion involved except during a period of a day or so when we were considering external affairs.
There are many interesting facts in this report. Let us consider what it states about Expo '67. The minister said the other day that everything was going well in this regard. Let us see what the Auditor General has to say about this. He has compiled a record of wastefulness, a record of expenditure beyond that which parliament ever authorized. Expenditures are now beyond the amount authorized and the project is not nearly completed. These people will need a great deal more money if the project is to be successful.
At page 78 of this report the following is stated:
Ice jams have always been a serious problem in the St. Lawrence river between lake St. Peter and the Montreal harbour. It was foreseen that creation of the site for Expo '67 in this area would intensify this problem. Since icebreaking capacity sufficient to guarantee an open river throughout the winter could not be assured, an interdepartmental committee decided in 1963 that an additional safeguard should be provided in the form of an ice control structure to provide protection to the exhibition site-
They did not want the exhibition to be iced out so they have had to build a wall to keep it clear.
Listen to the remainder of the same paragraph:
-and to assist in controlling the ice conditions in the area. It was announced early in 1964 that
Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker the estimated cost of the structure would be $12.5 million. It is now expected to cost approximately $15.5 million.
It is expected that the cost of building a wall to protect the exhibition site from ice will be $15.5 million.
What is the situation in regard to the employees of Expo '67? There are many pages in this report dealing with this subject and they are very revealing. This wasteful expenditure cannot be justified. It was the government I had the honour to head which brought this exposition to Canada, but we undertook that the total expenditure by the federal government would be $20 million plus $15 million by the government of the province of Quebec and $5 million, as I recall it, by the city of Montreal.


An hon. Member:: They have gone hog wild.


John George Diefenbaker: They have gone all out and apparently nothing is being done to control these expenditures. Just listen to this statement about these employees who cannot move about without having cars rented for them. It appears on page 136:
At December 31, 1963 the corporation had entered into one-year contracts for the rental of 15 cars for the use of senior officers and employees on a basis whereby each officer would pay $30 per month for his personal use of the car with the corporation bearing all rental and fuel costs.
It was not enough that the cost of living was going up during 1964 but, as this paragraph states:
-the number of automobiles under rental increased to 33 with the total expense to the corporation for the year amounting to $54,000. made up of rental payments, parking costs and gasoline.
What is going on with respect to this corporation? Are they attempting to create a Roman holiday for some of the officials of this exhibition which we want to be a credit to Canada, showing some of the greatness of her past and the hope for her future?
What is the next thing? They need insurance for these officials and the premiums are paid by the corporation with the benefits to go to the officials themselves. What a frightful travesty on control.
On page 136 the following is stated:
During 1963 twelve of the corporation's senior officers were insured by the corporation under a special insurance policy, the corporation paying premiums at the rate of $95 per annum for each principal sum of $100,000 insured. In all cases the beneficiaries named were and remain the estates or dependents of the insured officers.
What are they insured for and why must we have insurance for these people? Is it any
626	COMMONS
Supply-Mr. Diefenbaker wonder that this government did not want an examination made of its estimates? Let me go on reading from that paragraph:
The same arrangement has continued through 1964 under a new ooliey at a rate of $72 Der annum for each nrincinal sum of $100,000 insured. At the close of the year, 48 of the corporation's officers were so insured at an annual cost to the corporation of $2,800.
It is not the amount that is important in this case; it is the waste and the lack of any justification for these officials, receiving fabulous salaries, having their insurance paid for at the expense of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Bigg:: It comes from medicare.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to hear the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) on this. He would clear it up.


Some hon. Members:: Here he comes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not directly responsible for this but I do suggest that the right hon. gentleman might like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get assistance because the Minister of Industry was showing such an unusual interest in this matter that I felt certain he had something worthwhile to contribute to the house. Let us go on from there:
The approved plans of organization show the number of officers and employees required, the proposed classes of positions and a salary range for each such class established with the approval of the federal and provincial treasury boards and the Civil Service Commission of Canada. Our review of appointments made by the corporation indicated that in the case of many appointments to senior positions, initial or starting salaries had been paid at rates higher than the established minimum rates, and in certain cases the maximum rates had been paid immediately on appointment at some of the most senior levels. In a number of instances promotions had been given in 1963 to senior officers within six months of their appointments, and a large number of officers in receipt of salaries-
Mark these words, Mr. Speaker:
-a large number of officers in receipt of salaries of $10,000 per annum or more had received increases in 1964 ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, the increases in three cases being over 51 per cent with one as high as 92 per cent.

DEBATES	February 2, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What is this? We want the Exposition to be the show place of Canada, not the play place of officials. There seems to be no necessary control, and I think the time has come for the heads of this corporation to be brought before a parliamentary committee for the purpose of looking into these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to refer to any other items, Mr. Speaker. I think I have referred to enough to indicate that this little volume, which costs only 75 cents, is the most revealing testimony of this government's ineptness and its failure to recognize ordinary business principles. This cannot go on. It is not only in these departments that unnecessary expenditures occur; page after page reveal similar situations. I said a moment ago that the total amount that we agreed should be the maximum federal contribution to Expo was $20 million and that is set forth at page 133.
Just think of how this organization has mushroomed. Who wouldn't want to get in on it? Just imagine this:
The initial plan of organization was submitted and approved in April 1963, providing for a total establishment of 79 positions for 1963-The number of authorized positions as at December 31, 1964 was 540, the actual staff strength at that date being 489. The current revised plan of organization, approved by the governor in council on February 25, 1965, provides for progressive increases in the staff establishment up to a total of 997 positions by the end of 1965.
Sir, these matters have to be looked into. We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition have a responsibility to examine these matters and we intend to discharge that responsibility. We have a responsibility to scrutinize the expenditures of the government. I am not going to deal with some of the other matters, Mr. Speaker, because I will have the opportunity to do so in the next few days. But I thought it well to point out that the propaganda campaign carried out across Canada to the effect that we on this side of the house prevent those sitting in the treasury benches from carrying out their duties is simply a smokescreen to cover up their ineptness. It must have been quite an experience for them to have read this. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has not read it yet. He is busy with the Spencer case-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 2, 1966	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: -and I can understand that. But, sir, what I stood up to say was that all this fiction about parliament existing to pass legislation, as though it were a legislative mill, is simply designed by the government as a means to hide from examination. It is fortunate that we have an Auditor General who is not afraid to speak.
ITranslationl


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the session, many speakers on boths sides of the house either praised ARDA or made constructive criticism on its administration since it came into force.
Last night in the course of the debate, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) stooped to unfair criticism. In the few minutes at my disposal I would like to go over some of his remarks.
Had it been the first time last night that the hon. member for Roberval had criticized ARDA, I would not have wanted to take the time of the house this afternoon to correct some of his statements.
However, the hon. member for Roberval made several speeches against ARDA, in particular on October 15, 1963, December 12, 1963, April 24, 1964, May 15, 1964, May 25, 1964 and October 28, 1964.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Last night he allowed himself to criticize four specific points. I do not know if I shall have time to cover them all, but I do think it is important to give a few details with regard to what he said on the social and economic survey of the Mistassini region, the Lake St. John blueberry patches, the drainage projects and the construction of a cold storage plant.
I wish the member for Roberval had stuck more closely to the truth when he spoke of the Mistassini survey.
I shall demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, how considerable harm can be done to the implementation of an act which was adopted unanimously by the House in 1961, after the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) had obtained everyone's support for an act that, in my opinion, is one of the best we have to fight against poverty in rural areas.
Now it happens that the hon. member for Roberval, who probably looked askance at the ministers who invaded his riding to make speeches during the election campaign, said last night things which were inaccurate and
DEBATES	627
Supply-Mr. Sauve
more particularly he tried to persuade us that the provincial administrators of ARDA play politics with this project of socio-economic survey.
I will go over every single thing he said and the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) can listen to me carefully, because I could also look after him in the future.


Raymond Langlois: You are playing politics.


Maurice Sauvé: We see on page 553 of Hansard those words of the hon. member:
Under ARDA, political committees were set up, such as the one in the Mistassini valley, in which an amount of $50,000 was sunk in the last election-
This socio-economic survey had nothing whatsoever to do with the election, and the hon. member must be aware of it, since this survey entitled "Social-economic pilot survey project in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area" was proposed to the provincial authorities on June 11, 1965, when there was no election in sight. This survey was supposed to cover three different Lac-Saint-Jean areas, the Mistassini valley, Shipshaw, Valin and the Peribonca basin.
It was a pilot survey conducted by the people themselves. He, the great protector of democracy should have read the documents before referring to this project, and I quote:
A survey conducted by the people themselves in order to gather information and statistics which will enable them to become aware of their problems and appreciate their full extent.
The project was formulated by the Lake Saint-John Regional Economic Council on June 11th, approved by Hon. Alcide Courcy, Quebec minister of Agriculture, who signed the ARDA agreements for the province of Quebec on August 24th, 1965 and sanctioned a few days later by the federal government.


David Réal Caouette: And made operative during the elections.


Maurice Sauvé: This survey obviously could not start before it was approved. What were the amounts earmarked for the survey in the three regions? A total of $50,000 nearly 40 per cent of which was for the Mistassini section, in the riding of the member for Roberval.
This very member said people were paid $15 a day and that during the last week before the election more than a thousand people worked day and night in the riding.
The total amount provided for salaries in the three regions breaks down as follows: $8,000 for "social automation" and $5,000 for the

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Sauve
secretariat, that is an amount of about $13,000 for the three regions; 40 per cent of this, $5,000, was for the constituency of Roberval, and the hon. member claims that people were paid $15 a day, and that they were 1,000, which means $15,000 a day, while the amount provided for and approved for this region was scarcely $5,000. That is the sort of allegations that are being made. The hon. member says:
They went into homes to ask questions. They claimed to be asking questions on the family budget to determine the state of poverty of a family but, in fact, the questions were to determine whether they were Conservative, Liberal or Social Crediters.
I have here the text of the demographic inventory and of the employment, productions and services inventory.
I defy the hon. member for Roberval and all the other members of the party led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to prove for a moment that this inquiry was conducted for a political purpose, that political questions were asked, that excessive amounts of money were spent. It is well known that the people of that region wanted the inquiry.
I should like to meet the member for Roberval in a television debate or in his riding; I would confront him with his own statements and the people of Roberval would reject him, for they need ARDA.
It is a sad thing, Mr. Speaker, that while we have always had in this house the cooperation of everyone in voting for this model bill, there should now be members who indulge in politicking; either they are unaware of the facts, or they lie knowingly.
With a total expenditure of around $4,000 to $5,000 in salaries, I just cannot see how $15 per day could have been paid to a thousand persons for political purposes.


Raymond Langlois: What about the Magdalen Islands?


Maurice Sauvé: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could tell my good friend about the Magdalen Islands and he would be surprised at the honesty and intelligence of the people there who, during the election campaign or at any other times, live as a close group, because there are no outsiders and they all know one another. Naturally, since the matter is now sub judice, I cannot refer to it, but, in due course, I should like to reveal some extraordinary things which would make the hon. member blush and also his colleagues in the Rallie-

ment creditiste, who think they can destroy the reputation of honest people. You cannot sling mud and not expect any in return. Beware, because we are keeping our eyes open on this side of the house, especially as regards certain Quebec ridings.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I decided to speak about ARDA because the hon. member talked about "blueberry patches". The hon. member for Roberval does not like the kind of "blueberry patches" the Quebec provincial government is submitting to the federal government for its approval. In fact, he stated:
Under ARDA $3 million were spent to destroy tens of millions of dollars' worth in forest resources.
Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Roberval has been referring to the "blueberry patches" of lake St. John and Roberval county so often now that I feel I want to set the facts in their true light. The planting of "blueberry patches" in the province of Quebec was done under ARDA and, in this matter, the initiative has come from the province. Hon. members have already received, in either French of English, the report of the federal-provincial convention on rural redevelopment for the period 1965-70, and as reported on page 9, this report states:
Unless otherwise specified in this agreement, the province will organize and carry out the approved plans and projects.
It is therefore the province, either the province of Quebec or any other one, which takes the initiative and submits projects for the approval of the federal administration.
Before starting the operation of a blueberry patch, a group of experts, including forestry engineers and agrologists, survey the lands where blueberries can be grown. They determine the condition of the forest, as well as the farming possibilities, and they provide an estimate of the cost for clearing and burning. This preliminary work is made at the request of regional unions of blueberry producers. As for the planning, it is done by members of the union, under the supervision of the staff of the district office, Colonization Branch, Department of Agriculture and Colonization.
When the work is completed, the annual maintenance costs fall entirely on the blueberry producers' unions.
The crown land used for setting up blueberry operations is, in most cases, low yield wood lots which offer very little possibilities
February 2, 1966

from a farming standpoint. Let us take the case of the blueberry farm at St. Augustin, 5142-1, located in the riding of Roberval. The experts of the Department of Agriculture and Colonization-experts from the provincial department-gave the following opinion:
The annual yield from these young lots at maturity range between $8 and $10 per acre, whereas as blueberry farms we can expect for 1966 a crop of at least one thousand pounds of blueberries per acre, that Is an income of approximately $130 per acre.
An income of $8 to $10 is expected from those wood lots as they stand now, but turned into blueberry farms, they can give a return of about $130 per acre. In general, these woodlots bring in only $10 to $20 an acre whereas it is possible, thanks to blueberry growing, to produce a crop which brings in between $90 and $130 per acre. When the crop is good, it can bring each family between $500 and $1,000 per season. Unfortunately, because of unfavourable weather conditions in 1965, the blueberry crop was considerably less this year. On the other hand, the cost of blueberries was much higher.
During the 1962-1965 period ARDA spent $1,163,479 to set up 16 blueberry farms in Quebec. The federal government contributed half that amount. The hon. member says that we spent $3 million, that is almost three times as much as we really did.
During the same period ARDA spent in the county of Roberval, $561,000 or 48 per cent of the amounts earmarked for the development of "blueberry patches" in Quebec. These payments were used for the development of 10,800 acres of land into "blueberry patches," in the county of Roberval.
The hon. member is reproaching us for trying to find a solution in his riding to the very serious problems besetting rural areas. But then, what else can we do? Should we reject projects concerning his riding and submitted by the provincial government, under the pretext that the hon. member for Roberval does not like this type of enterprise, because of his retarded social philosophy? That is the main reason why he refuses to admit that the ARDA projects or the ARDA Act itself have any value. I have reread all his speeches and I do not intend to discuss his harebrained philosophy. What I know is that all the people of the Lake St. John and Chicoutimi areas favour this type of enterprise and ask us to carry on.
Supply-Mr. Sauve
We are considering development projects for the area, such as tourist centres, model farms, etc. A series of projects is being planned, not only for the area but for the rest of Quebec and Canada as well.
I find it unthinkable that a member representing an area of the province of Quebec where, as a result of historical events or past situations, there is a group of low income families, I find it unthinkable that a member such as the one for Roberval should discredit in the house legislation which is bound to accomplish something. Obviously, it will not settle all problems-nobody said so, neither I, the member for Qu'Appelle nor other members, but at least it is a worthy endeavour.
The member for Roberval says:
We are still awaiting grants for drainage.
I think he has never read the numerous documents we sent him since 1963.
Had he done so, he would have found that of the $10 or $11 million that the province of Quebec devoted to ARDA in the course of the three first years of the program, 47 per cent of that amount, or $5,600,000, was earmarked for drainage in the province.
How is it that a member whom I consider as serious enough to win an election, is heard in the house uttering ineptitudes and trying to deceive us on a social and economic inquiry on the blueberry patches and on the drainage projects. I could point out another of his statements which is to be found on page 554 of the official report of the House of Commons and which reads as follows:
If those millions had been spent on cold storage plants or potato cellars or secondary farm industries-
Yet, the hon. member is unaware of what goes on in his own constituency and area. Why has he been elected? He does not know that a study is being done presently on the economic feasibility of a project for freezing and storing blueberries in the province of Quebec. He is also unaware that the government of the province of Quebec had a study made of the freezing and storing of blueberries and that it is now due to recommend the approval of a vast project for a cold storage plant.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I had to rise this afternoon not to speak about the whole of ARDA, of its plans, of its achievements, of what has been done and what remains to be done, but to reply to a member who has

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Sauve
systematically criticized ARDA and its operation in a partisan and unacceptable manner because he is ignorant of the act and of the facts-


An hon. Member:: Ignorant, period.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: May I say before closing, that of all the provinces of Canada for the period ending March 31, 1965, that is the first three years of ARDA, the province of Quebec shared the most in the ARDA programs and projects. The federal government has spent $11,859,000 for 179 projects. Next to Quebec comes the province of Saskatchewan which spent nearly $7 million.
Besides, ARDA is one of the measures which the Quebec provincial government wanted to support, as well as all the other provincial governments, during a federal-provincial conference which took place in Montreal in November 1964.
The Quebec government, as well as those of the other provincial governments, have made firm commitments for the next five years.
That is why, when the ARDA agreement I mentioned earlier was signed last year, I announced that the federal government had decided to spend $25 million a year, for five years, that is $125 million, to which the provincial governments could add an equal amount. Moreover, we put a resolution on Votes and Proceedings indicating that we proposed to ask the house that a fund of $50 million to be set up toward the social and economic development of special rural areas. This means that, with respect to the fight against poverty in rural areas, the federal and provincial governments could spend at least $300 million to help some 500,000 families, that is two million people who are living in a state of poverty we must not tolerate. That represents approximately 42 per cent of the rural population, which depends on agriculture or other means for a living. The government of Canada, the Canadian parliament particularly, are aware of the fact that every possible effort must be made to eradicate poverty from rural areas.
I should like the hon. members who belong to the same party as the hon. member for Roberval to support us in our war against poverty, to make recommendations on ways and means of improving the administration of this act or to offer positive criticism.

We do not claim that, out of the thousand projects we have realized or are about to realize since the inception of ARDA, we have made no errors.
Of course we have made mistakes, but we think that, on the whole, we are on the right course. ARDA is one of the legislative measures which can best fight poverty in rural areas, because the provincial and the federal governments want to do something and the people of Canada in general are ready to support considerable efforts to eliminate poverty in rural areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer a question?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Department of Forestry, in co-operation with the province of Quebec, has instituted several projects in the region of Quebec, especially on the south shore.
Has the minister considered also setting up a pilot project for rural communities in the area of Charlevoix which is constantly waging war against poverty?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Charlevoix knows that it is up to the province of Quebec and other provinces to submit to federal authorities projects or programs of rehabilitation for a given area.
We cannot, on our own initiative, tell a province that it should do this or that.
There are frequent meetings at technical and ministerial levels concerning ARDA and its application. Relationships are excellent. But the provinces must make the first move, for the kind of suggestions you have in mind.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of highway safety deserves immediate attention. The federal government has failed to take the necessary steps to fulfil its obligations in fighting public enemy number one, the constantly increasing death toll on our highways. We are all aware of the appalling increase in highway accidents but it would seem these are being treated in some quarters as a course of events that should be expected. Something must be done and there should be no delay.
In my opinion, help and assistance would be readily available if this government would
February 2, 1966

take the initiative and launch an all-out crusade to face up to this monster once and for all. They should pull out all stops, make the breathalizer test mandatory and increase the grant to the Canadian Highway Safety Council. A conference should also be called with provincial representatives, automobile manufacturer representatives and, in fact, representatives from all organizations willing to get together in a drive to bring about improvement in the situation.
Responsibility in highway safety has been ignored too long by all governments. Our laws and regulations have not kept pace with the times. Uniformity of laws and regulations, as well as of penalties, should apply to all provinces. Traffic signs and driver testing or any other feature having to do with our highways or driving on them should be the same.
Periodical vehicle inspection should be compulsory. Signboards, radio and television should be in constant use in an effort to keep all our people alert and aware of the need for extreme caution on our streets and highways. No doubt if the people I have suggested were brought together to set up a framework or a pattern for greater highway safety, many worthwhile ideas would be brought to light.
Automobile manufacturers have shown favourable response to highway safety through their willingness to supply cars for student training and supply them in abundance. Their designers are constantly investigating safety features and quite a number have been included in car equipment with satisfactory results. Perhaps the automobile people could be persuaded to go quite a lot further by way of extensive research on some of the recently suggested safety devices.
I suggest that in the not too distant future legislation will necessarily be passed to make anti-smog equipment a requirement. There is no way of assessing the injury being inflicted on us by carbon monoxide. However, we do know that any element that causes irritation in the lungs is a potential contributor to lung cancer. We know too that carbon monoxide is deadly when confined and may even be the cause of some highway accidents.
I take this opportunity to compliment the Canadian Highway Safety Council for their excellent effort over the years which has not been in vain but has been terribly handicapped by the lack of funds. The people who have kept the Highway Safety Council alive and active are all voluntary workers. Most of these people hold other quite responsible
Supply-Mr. Noble
positions in the business world so that work on the council is extra responsibility. Moral and financial support should be spontaneous and adequate. Instead, we find the council has run into frustrations in fund raising. Take this government, for example. The council has been unable to promote an increase of its grant from $25,000 per year for all types of safety, a problem that involved the death of
5.000	Canadians last year on highways alone.
By comparison, lung cancer killed less than
3.000	Canadians in 1964; yet this government spent almost $250,000 on an anti-smoking campaign. The council receives three times more support from industry than from the government. The casualty insurance industry, through the All Canada Insurance Federation, in support of one project alone, driver education, provides more funds than does the government of this nation. Another department of this government spent almost $100,000 for the production of a film on ballet dancing. There is no suggestion that these things are not worth while but it is abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the grant to the Highway Safety Council is far out of perspective in comparison.
I mentioned before that 5,000 people were killed last year on the highways, and in addition 160,000 people were injured, many permanently. The net economic traffic accident loss to Canadians last year was approximately $4 billion.
I am most anxious, Mr. Speaker, to see the government give every aspect of this problem their very serious consideration. I feel they are duty bound to take immediate action. The people of this country are anxiously waiting an aggressive move and it must come from the top. As an illustration may I relate an experience I had last session. I asked two questions on motor vehicle safety. One was put on the order paper and the other on orders of the day. It so happened both were answered in Hansard on June 16. The one put on the order paper was as follows:
Has the government given consideration to introducing legislation making it compulsory to equip automobiles being sold in Canada with all safety devices currently proven practical and efficient?
The answer was given by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), who said:
It should be emphasized that the provincial governments have the responsibility of drafting and enforcing regulations pertaining to the operational standards of motor vehicles. A great deal of work has already been undertaken by various groups to determine the areas where improvement in design or vehicle construction could lead to

February 2, 1966
Supply-Mr. Noble
greater safety which would be useful In the preparation of a safety code. It would, of course, be necessary to obtain the agreement of the provinces before a uniform safety code could be established for motor vehicles. The Department of Industry would be happy to co-operate with the provinces in the preparation of such a code.
Now, Mr. Speaker, owing to the tact that the provinces were so prominently mentioned in this answer, I took the liberty of writing each provincial minister having jurisdiction over highway responsibilities in his respective province and asked for his deliberations on the matter in respect of my questions. Of course, I enclosed a copy of Hansard for June 16. Before parliament prorogued I had replies from six provinces indicating their willingness to proceed along any progressive line for more safety on our highways. These replies left no doubt in my mind as to the response that would be forthcoming if the senior government would show the way. In fact, several provinces in recent Throne Speeches have indicated they would make traffic law improvements. The following are excerpts from newspaper reports relating to Throne Speeches. First, from Ontario:
Ontario will almost triple the number of compulsory highway spot checks this year in an effort to reduce the traffic death toll, it was indicated Tuesday in the Throne Speech.
The government promised to operate compulsory motor vehicle inspection at 80 "floating" locations, an increase of 48 from 1965.
Instead of using fixed locations that motorists can easily avoid, mobile lanes for safety checks will be carried in trucks, and the locations changed regularly.
Deputy Transport Minister A. G. MacNab said the accelerated program will provide wide coverage of the province.
"With the motorist not knowing when and where he'll be checked, our hope is that all motorists will keep their cars in better shape," he said.
Then, from British Columbia:
The British Columbia government plans legislation for compulsory testing of motor vehicles and the ruling of impaired drivers off the road.
It also plans a royal commission into automobile insurance.
The speech gave no indication as to how impaired drivers would be dealt with. But it was learned authoritatively that a maximum level of alcohol in the blood would be set by law beyond which a driver would not be permitted to drive and it would be up to the driver to prove his non-intoxication by some sort of test. The type of test was not disclosed.
In May of this year the annual conference of the Canadian Highway Safety Council will be held in Calgary. This would be the logical time for the federal and provincial governments to launch a highway safety crusade which would embrace all interested people

and organizations with a view to making some realistic progress towards greater highway safety. However, it does seem to me that this government must take one major step previous to this meeting. I refer to clearing the deck on the alcoholic problem by an amendment to the Criminal Code making breathalizer tests mandatory.
Statistics bear out the fact that at least 50 per cent of all traffic accidents are caused directly by someone under the influence of alcohol. Many prominent people feel very strongly about this problem and here are some of the thoughts they have expressed as a result of their deliberations. These are the views of Mr. George B. McClellan, Commissioner of the R.C.M.P.:
Where are the civil rights of the family whose breadwinner has been cut down by some drunken sot in a high-powered car? What system exists to provide free legal advice to the widow who may have a legitimate civil claim for damages? Who moves in to rehabilitate her children, find them jobs, give them career guidance, feed them and clothe them? Who, indeed, but cold charity, and local welfare organizations?
But the drunk who drove the car, if convicted, is entitled to all these things when he becomes a ward of the state-
What about the right to insist that driving on our highways should be a reasonably safe pastime and not a competition to stay alive? It should not be necessary to spend every minute you are driving an automobile in endeavouring to outwit the nuts, the fireballs and the drunks who drive on every highway today without the slightest regard to life, regulation, safety or their fellow men.
This is what the Hon. Gordon Taylor has to say. He is the Highways Minister for Alberta, one of the ministers from whom I received a letter.
One drink before driving may soon be against the law, predicts Hon. Gordon Taylor, Alberta highways minister. The problem of drinking drivers is getting so bad it might get to the point where it will become an offence to drink at all and drive.
Under present legislation a drinking driver cannot be convicted unless police can establish impairment. Anti-drink-and-drive legislation will have to get stronger. At a conservative estimate, at least 50 per cent of today's highway accidents are caused because at least one person involved took a drink.
The minister said penalties against impaired drivers in Alberta are now among the highest in Canada.
Here is an opinion from Dr. Morton Shulman, Chief Coroner of Metropolitan Toronto.
More than half the drivers killed in Ontario car accidents between last November and this June had enough alcohol in their blood to be legally impaired, Metro Chief Coroner, Dr. Morton Shulman, said yesterday.
February 2, 196G

Urging that all drivers involved in accidents be given breath tests and that spot checks with breath testing machines be made. Dr. Shulman said only these steps would stop the slaughter on our highways.
Because forcing an individual to take the test might be objectionable to many, he recommended that applicants for a driver's license be required to sign a waiver allowing for tests. Such a system worked successfully in New York and other states, he said. If such a driver subsequently refused to allow a breath test, his license was cancelled.
The need was urgent, he said, because the people being killed were those in the prime of life. Quoting figures to emphasize the problem, Dr. Shulman said alcohol was involved in 50 per cent of all accidents producing fatalities. When one eliminates child pedestrian deaths, the alcohol factor may be as high as 80 per cent.
Dr. Shulman said he was suggesting the liberal use of breath tests in the hope that they would deter drivers from taking to the road after drinking, rather than in the hope more would be caught after doing so.
Chief Justice McRuer expressed himself as follows:
By logic these drinking drivers should not be judged by the results of their condition, but by the condition itself.
And that puts it on the basis that those who are impaired should all be treated severely. If we applied common sense in our society, that's precisely what would be done.
Anyone who drives on the highway in an impaired condition is a great menace to human life.
We wouldn't tolerate a man operating a crane on a construction job while his ability is impaired. He'd be dismissed at once. So would the impaired locomotive engineer on the railroad.
But in the public mind, impaired driving on the highway is a matter to be treated lightly. So that shows how illogical the public mind can be sometimes.
There's too light a value being placed on human life. All the focus in criminal auto accident cases before the courts is on the accused. The person whose life is destroyed is viewed very much as a mere statistic.
All of us are apt to have momentary lapses, to be thoughtless at times, to have our attention distracted. But that's quite different from undertaking to drive a dangerous thing like an automobile while under the influence of liquor, drugs or anything like that.
It is being accepted as a way of life, but I do not think it should be. I can't write the prescription to cure it, but if all segments of the public stirred themselves I think something could be done. The highway toll is not something we have to put up
Supply-Mr. Noble
with. If people obeyed the law accidents would be cut in half because most are due to people disobeying the rules of the road.
The alcohol problem was brought home to me forcibly a little over two weeks ago when within a few miles of my home a family of five people on their way home from church were all killed by a driver who had been drinking. This man received only minor injuries.
It is my hope that the government will not delay in introducing the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code respecting drunk driving. At this time I also bring to the attention of the house the lack of courtesy and indifference displayed by car drivers at the gates of this very building. I refer to the traffic coming off Metcalfe street on to Wellington. When the green light comes on many drivers do not wait for the pedestrians to cross but drive out and dodge through the people crossing the street. A start could be made at our very doors.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, could I have permission to finish this one page?


Mr. Winch:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have unanimous consent. It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Friday, January 28 last, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the motion now before the house.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Pursuant to special order made Friday, January 21, 1966, the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, of all departments of government are now deemed to have been first taken up and entered for consideration.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 3, 1966